Oral
Answers to
Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Inward Investment

Maria Caulfield: What steps the Government are taking to encourage inward investment in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: Before I answer the question, I would like to convey my condolences to the family of Adrian Ismay, the prison officer who sadly died as a result of a terrorist attack in the period since our last Northern Ireland questions. I would like to extend the same condolences to the family of Michael McGibbon, who was brutally murdered in north Belfast, in an attack that has all the hallmarks of a paramilitary assault.
To encourage inward investment in Northern Ireland, the Government have reduced UK corporation tax to the joint lowest in the G20 and legislated to enable the devolution of rate-setting powers to Northern Ireland. Working with the Executive, we are also making progress on the establishment of a new enterprise zone near Coleraine.

Maria Caulfield: I echo the sentiments of condolence expressed by the Secretary of State, and I thank her for her reply. What benefit does she think this inward investment will bring to the local economy of Northern Ireland? In particular, what steps are being taken to ensure that all communities will benefit from it?

Theresa Villiers: There has been significant investment in Northern Ireland in recent years, and it continues to perform beyond many parts of the United Kingdom. Recent good news includes 110 new jobs for Cookstown from CDE; 74 new jobs in Belfast from HighWire Press; and about 70 new jobs in Fermanagh and Omagh. Invest NI reports that it has promoted 37,000 new jobs since 2011 and delivered £2.6 billion of investment to the local economy, benefiting all parts of Northern Ireland.

Alasdair McDonnell: I thank the Secretary of State for her answers so far. She will be aware that key Northern Ireland companies such  as Allstate and Almac have had to look outside Northern Ireland to recruit suitably skilled staff in recent times. Has she any suggestion as to how we might ensure a suitable supply of potential staff who are skilled up to take advantage of opportunities offered by inward investment?

Theresa Villiers: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a skilled workforce is crucial for attracting inward investment. Northern Ireland has an excellent workforce, with many highly-skilled individuals, but there is always more that can be done. The UK Government have invested significantly in apprenticeships, which is reflected in Barnett consequentials to the block grant. I know that apprenticeships are also something the Northern Ireland Executive take very seriously, and they are delivering many of them.

Laurence Robertson: Does the Secretary of State agree that airport connectivity is a vital tool in attracting inward investment? Given that Dublin has announced that it will be increasing its airport capacity by 2020, is it not time Her Majesty’s Government took a decision on airport capacity in the south-east of England?

Theresa Villiers: Yes, the Government will be making a decision on the expansion of airport capacity in the south-east in due course. We are clear that new capacity is needed and that a decision will be made shortly.

Ian Paisley Jnr: May I personally thank the Secretary of State for the efforts she made in helping to secure a £67 million contract for the Wrights Group in Ballymena, which was very well received there, and for the work she did behind the scenes in securing that contract? Like me, is she appalled, however, by the scare stories and scare tactics being deployed by the remain campaign, which are turning people away from investment because they are scared of the consequences and all this hate activity that is going on? Will she, like me, ensure that, irrespective of the outcome on 23 June, every effort is made to make sure that moneys released to the United Kingdom will be used to attract inward investment in Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his comments on my role in relation to the Wrightbus contract. I did press Transport for London hard to go through with that contract, because I think it is important for job opportunities in Northern Ireland and so that we can have great buses for my constituents. On his question about the referendum, I think it is important for all sides to address the facts of the debate in a measured way, so that on 23 June the people of this country can make a judgment based on the objective facts of the situation.

Terrorism

Henry Smith: What recent assessment she has made of the level of the threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: The threat level from terrorism in Northern Ireland continues to be severe. Although many attacks  are disrupted and prevented, the callous murder of prison officer Adrian Ismay highlights the lethal nature of the continuing threat. The UK Government remain vigilant on combating terrorism, giving our full support to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and MI5 in their crucial work to keep people safe in Northern Ireland.

Henry Smith: I join in the condolences to Mr Ismay’s family. In addition to domestic terror threats in Northern Ireland, what assessments has the Secretary of State made of international terror threats to the Province?

Theresa Villiers: My hon. Friend will appreciate that that is a Home Office lead, but it is something that I discuss regularly with the Home Secretary, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Ireland Justice Minister and other relevant people. The Government take the matter extremely seriously, as the threat from international terrorism is severe. That is one reason why the strategic defence and security review made such a strong commitment to investing in our intelligence services and counter-terrorism spending, which includes a 30% real terms increase in counter-terrorism spending over the course of this Parliament.

Nigel Dodds: I join the Secretary of State in her words about the killing of Adrian Ismay and also in relation to the brutal slaying of Michael McGibbon, a father of four who was shot on Friday in my constituency. Clearly, that was an atrocious event. Will she join me in commending the courageous words of Mr McGibbon’s widow who has called for people to stand together against these paramilitary terrorists who carried out this atrocious attack? Does she agree that it is vital that we all unite against terrorists from all sides and that we get on with implementing the provisions to tackle paramilitaries in the “Fresh Start” agreement?

Theresa Villiers: I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s statement, Mr McGibbon’s widow is an incredibly brave woman. The circumstances of Mr McGibbon’s death are deeply tragic and heartbreaking. I know that the whole House will feel for his family at this time, and it is utterly unacceptable that, in modern Northern Ireland, there are still people who believe that they can take the law into their own hands and administer this violent, brutal treatment of individuals such as Mr McGibbon. It is utterly unacceptable. I agree with him that everyone in Northern Ireland should join the widow in this case and condemn that horrific and brutal murder.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer. Will she also take on board the fact that a number of prominent republicans have been arrested in North Belfast recently, including some out on licence? It is important that she reassures the community that she is keeping under review the terms in which people who are under licence are out on the streets, particularly Sean Kelly, the Shankill bomber. Does she also agree that there is great concern in Northern Ireland about the Attorney General’s decision to order a review into the actions of the Royal Ulster Constabulary when it stopped a terrorist from carrying out a terrorist attack? Will she look carefully at that and speak to colleagues about it?

Theresa Villiers: I agree that it is very important to take seriously revocation of licences. There is a very clear legal framework for doing that. Where there is evidence that a licence should be revoked, it is considered with the greatest seriousness. I also agree that it is vital that we press ahead with full implementation of the “Fresh Start” programme to eliminate the lingering influence of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. The time for those groups has passed. They were never justified under any circumstances and any tolerance of them in Northern Ireland today is to be condemned. In relation to the last point about the public prosecutor’s direction, that is a matter for the independent prosecutors.

Philip Hollobone: What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the terrorist threat from dissident republican groups to mainland Great Britain?

Theresa Villiers: The threat level is not as severe as it is in relation to Northern Ireland. It continues to be the case that dissident republican groupings have aspirations to mount attacks in Great Britain, but the indications are that their main focus continues to be Northern Ireland, and the Government will remain vigilant in doing everything they can to protect people, both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Sylvia Hermon: I am deeply sorry that Adrian Ismay became the 31st prison officer to be murdered in Northern Ireland, and I do hope that a memorial garden for prison officers will soon be completed in Northern Ireland. The question I want to ask the Secretary of State follows on from the second question of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). The Secretary of State will know that I have already written to her requesting a meeting to discuss why Sean Kelly’s licence has not been revoked. Gina Murray, a very dignified lady, whose only daughter was murdered in the Shankill Road bombing, wishes to have a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss the reasons why his licence has not been revoked. Will the Secretary of State consent to that meeting?

Theresa Villiers: I am certainly happy to have that meeting. In terms of timing, we might have to be careful about the interaction with the decision that I might need to make over the coming days and weeks, but I am sure that we can have a meeting on this matter at some stage.

Vernon Coaker: Despite much progress in Northern Ireland, there remains a terrorist threat, as we saw with the shocking murder of prison officer Adrian Ismay, whose funeral the Secretary of State and I attended. I associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State and we send our sincere condolences to Adrian Ismay’s family and colleagues. The Secretary of State will also know that there have been explosives found, bomb-making equipment discovered and murders north and south of the border. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether, in her opinion, these individuals are acting alone or as part of a more organised and co-ordinated terror group?

Theresa Villiers: A number of groupings are active in relation to the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland. They tend not to be terribly cohesive and are subject to  increasing and regular splits. They have connections both north and south of the border and, were it not for the dedication and effectiveness of the PSNI and its partners in MI5 we would see these individuals mounting attacks resulting in tragedies such as that which has befallen the family of Adrian Ismay in such despicable circumstances.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. She will know that in recent days in Northern Ireland there have been two terrible shootings, one with fatal consequences—that of Michael McGibbon. I associate myself with the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and with the words of the widow. Our hearts go out from this House to all the families and those affected. The PSNI says that the attacks have all the hallmarks of paramilitary assaults, so on the streets of this United Kingdom we have shootings and murders linked to paramilitary activity. It is both sickening and totally unacceptable. Will the Secretary of State tell us more about what happened, and what action she, the PSNI and others will take against those who have no respect for human life or the rule of law?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman chooses his words correctly; this is absolutely sickening. I feel that this case could be like a number we have seen over recent decades in Northern Ireland and be the point at which people there say that this is completely and utterly unacceptable. The police investigation is progressing, with an individual charged with murder, but it is also imperative, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said, that we implement the “Fresh Start” agreement proposals, including progress on the strategy that the panel is coming up with. We need to ensure that people have the confidence to come forward and give evidence against these individuals. That has been a persistent problem in gaining convictions, as people are afraid to give evidence in such cases. As a society, we need to do all we can to support and encourage people so that they are able to come forward and give evidence to bring these people to justice.

John Bercow: We are extremely grateful to the Secretary of State.

Export Licences: Agricultural Producers

Margaret Ritchie: What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on waiting times for Northern Irish agricultural producers to obtain export licences.

Ben Wallace: Too often the biggest barrier to exports of agricultural goods are health and inspection regimes in destination countries. One of our main efforts involves trying to develop the market to China and other countries and that is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been working closely with Department of Agriculture and Rural Development officials and industry to collate information and to address any concerns from destination countries, hopefully cutting out the delays in gaining export health certificates for Northern Ireland suppliers.

Margaret Ritchie: Does the Minister agree that although getting an export licence and getting approvals for Northern Ireland food produce already takes too long, the wait for Northern Ireland farmers would become ever longer if we were to leave the European Union and had to renegotiate our trade relationships with some of our nearest neighbours within the European common market?

Ben Wallace: It is certainly in the interest of Northern Ireland farmers and all farmers across the European Union that they have access to new markets across the rest of the world. That is one reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is, as we speak, in Washington lobbying hard for more access for UK farmers to sell their beef into the United States. We should recognise that the United Kingdom can do it, but if we do it alongside the EU in things such as the EU-US trade treaty we will gain more markets for our farmers and they will go from strength to strength.

David Simpson: The Minister will know that one obstacle for the agri-food sector, especially the meat industry, is BSE and swine flu certificates. Will he ensure that his Department works hard with the veterinary division to achieve that? We sometimes put all our eggs in one basket with China, but there are many other countries out there with which we can do business.

Ben Wallace: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is right. That is why, as I said earlier, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is in America, trying to get the BSE legacy issues removed so that we can access American markets to sell our beef, which will be great for our beef price. We need to learn from the Republic of Ireland, which has managed to forge ahead with milk exports around the world, which is why it has a better milk price than our dairy farmers.

EU Referendum

Susan Elan Jones: What discussions she has had with the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive on the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU; and if she will make a statement.

Ben Wallace: Ministers have regular discussions with the Northern Ireland parties on a range of issues. The Government’s position on the EU referendum  is clear: the UK will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed European Union.

Susan Elan Jones: Many of us were interested to see a survey by a highly reputable Northern Ireland business organisation which suggests that 81% of businesses support continuing EU membership. Why does the Secretary of State think she is right on that issue and those businesses are wrong?

Ben Wallace: The CBI Northern Ireland, 81% of the membership of the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce, and the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association all believe that remaining in the  European Union is good for Northern Ireland business and good for the economy. That is why the Government believe we are better off in.

Mark Durkan: May I join in the condolences that have been expressed by the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, and may I add condolences to the family of Sister Clare Theresa Crockett, the nun from Derry who was tragically killed in the earthquake in Ecuador? Has the Minister heard how many of us are so appreciative of the difference that EU membership has made to the border economy and not just to funding in Northern Ireland under programmes, but to funding models? Has he heard others say that that will be dwarfed by the bounty that we will receive as money is redirected to Northern Ireland instead of Brussels? Does he believe there is a crock of gold at the end of the Brexit rainbow?

John Bercow: A ministerial answer of one sentence would not be disorderly.

Ben Wallace: Northern Ireland benefits extremely well from money that it receives from the European Union. There is no pot of gold at the end of the Brexit rainbow, so I suggest that we get on and focus on what is right for Northern Ireland, which is remaining in the European Union.

Gregory Campbell: If the UK does decide to leave the EU, there will be an annual £9 billion hole in the EU finances. As other eastern bloc nations look to join to get more slices of a diminishing financial cake, what opportunities does the Minister believe Northern Ireland companies would have in those circumstances to export to Europe and beyond?

Ben Wallace: The first thing we should recognise is that Northern Ireland business does not agree with the hon. Gentleman and believes that it should remain in the European Union. If people voted to leave the European Union, from 24 June Northern Ireland businesses would unfortunately have to deal with instability for the next two years, which would damage their market.

Steve Pound: It will not have escaped your gimlet-eyed gaze, Mr Speaker, that those of us on Opposition Front Bench are united on the subject, but for months we have had uncertainty about what will happen to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic in the tragic event of Brexit. Two Sundays ago Lord Lawson popped up on the “The Andrew Marr Show” to say we would have a border. Leaving aside the irony of that coming from a French resident whose policy was to shadow the Deutschmark, may we have some clarity on what will happen to the border? Are there any revelations that the Minister would care to share with us?

John Bercow: Far too long.

Ben Wallace: On 24 June the border will still exist. However, if the United Kingdom chose to leave the European Union, it would step outside the customs union, which would inevitably affect trade across that  border on which Northern Ireland is significantly dependent, because of more bureaucracy, more checks and a slowdown of trade.

Tommy Sheppard: I appreciate that the Secretary of State must feel quite lonely in Belfast these days, given that her views on Europe are not shared by the overwhelming majority of the population of Northern Ireland. Can we get to the bottom of the question of Brexit and the border? Her colleague, Nigel Lawson, the former Chancellor, said that leaving the EU would mean rebuilding the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Three days ago she said that that was not the case. They cannot both be right.

John Bercow: Far too long.

Ben Wallace: One thing myself and my right hon. Friend are completely united on is that there will be no return to barbed wire and watchtowers should we leave or remain in the European Union. What there will be, however, is a Northern Ireland that steps outside the customs union, and that would inevitably affect the free flow of trade across the border.

Exports

David Rutley: What discussions she has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on increasing the level of exports from Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: Fixing the public finances to keep interest rates low and deliver economic stability is a crucial part of the Government’s efforts to promote exports. We are also using our diplomatic network around the world to promote exports from Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

David Rutley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that UK Trade & Investment and Economist Intelligence Unit information shows that the career aspiration young people want to fulfil most by 2020 is to run their own business? What steps are being taken to help them achieve their aspirations and to become first-time exporters in the UK and Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: To do that, we are delivering economic stability, and we are cutting national insurance contributions for 3.4 million self-employed people. We are also working with the Northern Ireland Executive through the economic pact to deliver things such as our start-up loans programme for young entrepreneurs and through the taskforce on access to banking, which has delivered £60 million in business finance.

Gavin Robinson: At a meeting yesterday involving the oil and gas group, Harland and Wolff from my constituency railed against the religious observance of EU regulations that is required of it, unlike its competitors across the European Union. How can we redress the balance so that it can compete equally with its competitors across the European Union?

Theresa Villiers: The Government are certainly doing all they can to ensure that the UK, including Northern Ireland, is one of the most competitive places in the world to do business, which is one reason why we have reduced corporation tax. We are bearing down on  unnecessary regulation. I will certainly look into the matters the hon. Gentleman raises in relation to the industry.

Voluntary Sector: Legacy of the Past

David Mowat: What assessment her Department has made of the role of the voluntary sector in dealing with the legacy of the past.

Theresa Villiers: In working to build consensus for the Stormont House agreement institutions on the past, I have held a number of very constructive meetings with voluntary groups who support and represent victims, as well as with victims themselves.

David Mowat: The Secretary of State will be aware of the reconciliation work performed by the Peace Centre, which is based in Warrington. Support is given to those on both sides of the Irish sea affected by terrorism, although the majority of the funding is provided by the Irish, not the UK, Government. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and members of the Foundation for Peace to discuss whether we can do more on this issue?

Theresa Villiers: I would be very happy to do that. I enjoyed my visit to the Peace Centre, and I have the highest regard for the work done by the centre and its various programmes to support the victims of Northern Ireland terrorism and other victims.

Tom Elliott: How much cognisance—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. We are discussing matters appertaining to the victims of terrorism, and that matter must be treated with respect, as must the hon. Member.

Tom Elliott: How much recognition and cognisance does the Secretary of State give to victims’ groups representing innocent victims in Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: I have met a wide range of groups representing victims in Northern Ireland. It is very important that we listen to their point of view in attempting to reach a consensus on how we best address the legacy of the past and establish the Stormont House institutions.

Tourism

Tristram Hunt: What steps the Government are taking to support tourism in Northern Ireland.

Ben Wallace: The promotion of tourism to Northern Ireland is primarily a devolved matter, but the Secretary of State and I take every opportunity to support it. The new British-Irish visa scheme in China and India will enable visits to both Ireland and the UK, including Northern Ireland, on a single visa of either country, thus encouraging tourism, business links and inward investment.

Tristram Hunt: According to Lord Lawson, the chair of the increasingly absurd Vote Leave campaign, a British vote to leave the European Union would result in the return of border posts and passport controls between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. What modelling has the Minister done on how that might affect the £750 million tourism industry in Ulster?

Ben Wallace: I do not think I need to do much modelling; we should let the businesses of Northern Ireland speak for themselves. They believe it would be wrong to leave the European Union. The free flow of tourists between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is good for Northern Ireland, good for the island of Ireland and good for the United Kingdom economy.

Jim Shannon: Whenever I visit the Milwaukee Irish Fest, I hear that when people travel to Dublin and to Shannon airport, they holiday only in southern Ireland. What discussions is the Minister having with Tourism Ireland to ensure that people come to Northern Ireland and enjoy our tourism facilities, which are much better than those in the south?

Ben Wallace: The single biggest challenge for Northern Ireland tourism is advertising its great offerings. The British Open golf championship will be held in Portrush in 2019, and other events include the North West 200, the Ulster Rally, the Giro d’Italia cycling event and the Balmoral show. If we can tell people that those events are out there and that they are on, more people will come north from the south.

Danny Kinahan: Will the Minister consider joining up the Northern Ireland tourism strategy with that for the rest of the United Kingdom, so that we can work together rather than just with Ireland?

Ben Wallace: In all tourism, the best thing to do is to play to our strengths. I will certainly explore that option, and I am also keen to make sure that tourism in the Republic of Ireland dovetails with the offering in Northern Ireland, so that we can encourage people into both Dublin and, indeed, the north of Ireland. We also look forward to, I hope, capitalising on the next series of “Game of Thrones”, which is due out very soon and was filmed in Northern Ireland, north of the wall.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Nigel Adams: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 April.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Nigel Adams: On her 21st birthday in 1947, a young woman declared that her whole life, whether long or short, would be dedicated to the service of our nation. Nobody could possibly argue that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has done anything other than fulfil her promise to the nation with dignity and grace.
People across the country will be marking the Queen’s 90th birthday tomorrow in many different ways. Many right hon. and hon. Members will have joined their women’s institutes in the Clean for the Queen initiative, tidying up our neighbourhoods. Some will raise a small glass and many will have a proper knees-up tomorrow.
When the Prime Minister next has an audience with the Queen, will he pass on my best wishes and those of the whole House to our remarkable monarch? Long may she reign.
Hear, hear!

David Cameron: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter. I will certainly pass on his best wishes and those from right across Yorkshire. Tomorrow is an important landmark, not only for Her Majesty the Queen, but for our country and for the Commonwealth as a whole. She has served our nation with such dignity and ability for so many years—64 years —on the throne. It is right that the House will have the opportunity tomorrow to pay tribute to what she has done, and I know that the whole country and the whole House will want to join me in saying, “Long may she reign over us.”

Jeremy Corbyn: I am also looking forward to wishing her a happy birthday tomorrow, but until then, could the Prime Minister explain why he is intent on forcing good and outstanding schools to become academies against the wishes of teachers, parents, school governors and local councillors?

David Cameron: The short answer is that we want schools to be run by headteachers and teachers, not by bureaucrats. That is why we support the policy. We also support it because of the clear evidence of academies. If we look at converter academies, we will see that 88% of them are either good or outstanding, and schools started by academies see a 10% improvement, on average, over the first two years. The results are better, education is improving and I say let us complete the work.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister has not managed to convince the former Chair of the Education Committee, his hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who said:
“Current evidence does not prove that academies raise standards overall or for disadvantaged children.”
Why is the Prime Minister ignoring evidence of Select Committee Chairs, and so many others, on this issue?

David Cameron: The results speak for themselves. Under this Government, 1.4 million more pupils are in good or outstanding schools. Let me take the right hon. Gentleman to a school near where he lives. Let us try the Downhills primary school, which is not far from his constituency. It was in special measures and taken over by an academy, and two years later it was a good school. The question I put to the Leader of the Opposition, and to so many other Labour MPs, is this: why do you want to stand on a picket line under a banner saying “Save our failing school”?

Jeremy Corbyn: As the Prime Minister well knows, every teacher, parent and pupil wants the best that they can get for their schools, and a good education system.   Many are concerned about top-down reorganisation. If he will not listen to the former Chair of the Education Committee, will he listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince)? He said this:
“if a school is well governed, well run and performing well, it should be left alone and allowed to do its job.”—[Official Report, 13 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 445.]
Will the Prime Minister explain why good school leaders should focus their time and resources not on educating children but on arbitrary changes imposed from above?

David Cameron: Let me make two points on that specific issue. I would say to outstanding or good schools that they have nothing to fear from becoming academies, but a huge amount to gain, and we want even outstanding or good schools to be even better. In truth, academies and greater independence, and letting headteachers run their schools, has been hugely effective. This is something that was started by the Labour Government and given rocket-boosters by this Government. We have seen massive improvements in our schools because of academies, and we say, “Let’s get on with it, finish the job, and give all our children a great opportunity.”

Jeremy Corbyn: I am sure the Prime Minister is aware of the views of people in Oxfordshire on this issue. Councillor Tilley, the Conservative cabinet member for education in the Prime Minister’s county, said:
“I’m fed up with diktats from above saying you will do this and you won’t do that.”
The Prime Minister claims to be an advocate of devolution. Is he not concerned about criticisms from his hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), who says that
“there is little accountability or parental involvement”?
Does the Prime Minister understand the anger that so many people feel because a system that they do not want is being imposed on them and on what are often already very good if not outstanding schools?

David Cameron: It is always good to get a lecture on diktats from someone whose press secretary is an avowed Stalinist, but I will pass over that. Creating academies is true devolution because we are putting power in the hands of headteachers and teachers. Of course we will find people in local government who want to keep things exactly as they are, but one of the reasons that I so strongly support academies is because when they fail, they are intervened on so much faster. Local authority schools are often left to fail year after year after year, and I think that one year of a failing school is one year too many. Let us encourage academies, build a great education system, and have opportunity for all our children.

Jeremy Corbyn: Last week, I spent an interesting afternoon at a local school in my constituency. I visited Duncombe primary school, which is a good to outstanding school, and I had a long discussion with the headteacher, parents, parent governors, and year 6 pupils. The year 6 pupils were very interesting. Hawan, Tasnia, Eamon and Maryanne asked me to ask the Prime Minister: why are you doing this? They love their school, and they like it the way it is. They do not want any top-down reorganisation. He has not even convinced the former Education Secretary, Kenneth Baker, who said that he  does not “quite know why” the Government are doing this. What is the Prime Minister’s answer to those smart pupils in year 6?

David Cameron: My answer to those pupils in year 6 is very much the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave. I have been following his tour of the school, and this is what he said:
“I want to see a family of schools and I want to see them properly funded.”
Of course, with our reform to the national funding formula, there will be fair funding right across the country. With our plans for academies, there will be genuine families of schools that choose to group together. Here is the point about outstanding schools. Not only will they be able to get better, but in groups of academies, they will be able to help other schools to improve. That is why we need this reform: to make good schools even better and to help to raise the aspiration of all. That is what it is all about.

Jeremy Corbyn: We appear to be heading into some kind of fantasy land. The Institute for Fiscal Studies states that school spending
“is expected to fall by at least 7% in real terms”
in the next four years—the biggest cut since the 1970s. So why on earth is the Prime Minister proposing to spend £1.3 billion on a top-down reorganisation that was not in his manifesto? Teachers do not want it, parents do not want it, governors do not want it, headteachers do not want it and even his own MPs and councillors do not want it. Can he not just think again and support schools and education, rather than forcing this on them?

David Cameron: Let me answer the question about spending very directly. We protected spending per pupil all the way through the last Parliament and all the way through this Parliament. We are spending £7 billion on more school places to make up for the woeful lack of action under the last Labour Government. That is the truth on spending.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about fantasy land, and I think the Labour party this week entered fantasy land. The Labour party is abandoning Trident in Scotland and it has selected in London someone who sits on platforms with extremists. When I read that the Labour party was going to ban McDonnell from its party conference, I thought that was the first sensible decision it had made, but it turns out that it was not the job destroyer that the Labour party wanted to keep away from its conference; it was one of Britain’s biggest employers. No wonder Labour MPs are in despair. Frankly, I’m lovin’ it.

Christopher Chope: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees with the Treasury forecast issued on Monday, which warns that if we stay in the European Union, there will be 3 million more migrants by 2030? Last year, my right hon. Friend and I were elected on a clear manifesto pledge to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. How will we be able to deliver on that pledge unless we leave the European Union

David Cameron: The point about the Treasury forecast is that it takes the Office for National Statistics figures and the Office for Budget Responsibility figures and it does not alter them; it is trying to make a very clear and pure argument—backed by the Governor of the Bank of England yesterday—that shows what would happen if Britain left the EU. There is a demand out there for independent and clear statistics, and that is exactly what the Treasury has provided.

Angus Robertson: It is believed that the recent murder of Glasgow shopkeeper Asad Shah was religiously motivated. This week, Christian, Jewish, Sikh and Ahmadiyya Muslim faith leaders launched  a campaign across Scotland entitled United against Extremism. Will the Prime Minister join me and colleagues from all parties in supporting the aims of that campaign to support and foster understanding and stand up to extremism?

David Cameron: I will certainly join the right hon. Gentleman. This was an absolutely shocking murder. What it demonstrates, and what his question hints at, is that we need to stand up not only against acts of appalling violence such as this, but against the extremist mindset that sometimes tries to justify such events and other such outrages.

Angus Robertson: I am in total agreement with the Prime Minister. The murder of Asad Shah is just the most recent example of sectarian extremism targeting the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in the UK, including reports of Ahmadiyya being refused employment, businesses being boycotted, schoolchildren being bullied and shunned, and people such as Aamer Anwar who have worked to bring faith leaders together facing death threats. Does the Prime Minister agree that such extremism is totally unacceptable in a country where we believe in free speech and religious tolerance? The time has come for all community and all faith leaders of all religions to stand up against extremism.

David Cameron: I certainly agree that faith leaders can play a huge role in standing up against extremism and I welcome what they do, but we need to be very clear about what we are facing. The attack on Ahmadiyya Muslims by other Muslims demonstrates once again that what we face is not some clash of civilisations between Islam and Christianity or Islam and Buddhism. What we are seeing is a small minority within one of the great religions of our world, Islam, believing that there is only one way—a violent, extremist way—of professing their faith. This is a battle within Islam, and we have to be on the side of the moderate majority and make sure that they win it. We have to really understand what is happening, otherwise we will take the wrong path.

Kevin Foster: The future of services provided by Paignton hospital has been thrown into doubt this week by news that the clinical commissioning group and the local trust are about to launch a consultation that could see it closed with no replacement. Does the Prime Minister share my concerns, and does he agree that it is vital that services are replaced and that the trust and CCG justify their actions

David Cameron: I am aware of the draft proposals concerning Paignton hospital. I understand that no decision has yet been made. The plans are due to be considered by the clinical commissioning group’s governing body. Let us remember that these bodies are now, by and large, clinically-led, and I think that is important. Decisions about what services are required will be taken by that group, but if there are significant changes, they still have to meet four key tests: support from clinical commissioners, strengthened public and patient engagement, clarity on the clinical evidence base and support for patient choice. All those things have to be satisfied.

Geraint Davies: The air in our cities is both toxic and illegal, with diesel fumes contributing to 800 deaths a week—that is 40,000 a year—so why is the Prime Minister, instead of removing the most heavily polluting vehicles from our streets, lobbying the EU in Brussels, with the Mayor of London, to weaken plans to improve our air quality and save lives

David Cameron: We are investing in better air quality. Since 2011, we have committed over £2 billion to help bus operators upgrade their fleets. We have seen air quality improve between 2010 and 2014, with emissions of nitrous oxides coming down by 17%. When it comes to these standards that we all have to meet, we are working with our car industry. I want a strong car industry in Britain. I am proud of the fact that it has recovered so strongly that the north-east of England now makes more cars than the whole of Italy and that we are a major investor in and builder of diesel engines, but we are going to make sure that it has the resources it needs to meet the higher standards that are set out.

Matt Warman: It is a truth universally acknowledged that fish and chips taste best on the beaches of Skegness, and that is why 4 million people visit those beaches every year. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should work with the Environment Agency, the local enterprise partnership and local councils, build on the work of this Government that has brought jobs and growth, and extend the tourist season and build a billion-pound coastal economy by the end of this decade

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I announced the five-point plan for tourism last year to encourage people to visit UK resorts—both people from overseas and British people—and that is exactly what is happening. Is it not interesting that in the week when we on this side of the House are supporting fish and chips, those on the other side of the House are banning McDonald’s?

Sue Hayman: More than 2,000 people have signed a petition, started by Allisons Chemist in Cockermouth in my constituency, calling on the Government not to cut the funding of community pharmacists. Given the major reports last week regarding the actions of Boots, which now faces investigation by the regulator, is it not time that the Prime Minister and his Government supported independent

David Cameron: We are supporting rural pharmacies —there is a specific scheme to help there—but in the last five years there has been a massive increase in pharmacy spending. As we make sure that as much of the NHS’s resources as possible go to the frontline—the doctors and nurses, the operations and the A&E we want—we have to make sure we are getting value for money in pharmacy, while also protecting the rural pharmacies the hon. Lady speaks about.

Christopher Pincher: Given his earlier important comments, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the duty of all Members to condemn without caveat all extremism and never to share a platform with any extremist?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are going to condemn not just violent extremism but the extremism that seeks to justify violence in any way, it is very important that we do not back these people or appear on platforms with them. I am concerned about Labour’s candidate for Mayor of London, who has appeared again and again and again—

Jeremy Corbyn: Disgraceful.

David Cameron: The leader of the Labour party says it is disgraceful, so let me tell him: the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has appeared on a platform with Suliman Gani nine times; this man supports IS. He even shared a platform—[Interruption.] The Opposition are shouting down this point because they do not want to hear the truth. Anyone can make a mistake about who they appear on a platform with, and we are not always responsible for what our political opponents say, but if someone does it time after time after time, it is right to question their judgment.

Jonathan Edwards: News overnight of a management and worker buy-out at Tata Steel Port Talbot will bring hope to the 18,000 people whose livelihoods are supported by the company across the supply chain. It is critical that the UK Government provide all the support they can. Will the Prime Minister become the company’s head of sales and meet personally with Port Talbot’s 20-biggest customers, who make up about 50% of  its sales, to ensure that no orders for Welsh steel  are lost?

David Cameron: We will certainly do everything we can to help the company, including with its customers, during this difficult time. Right now, we are talking with the board of Tata to make sure we answer all the questions it needs answered, because we want to have a proper sales process, with proper buyers coming forward. We want to be very clear that the Government are prepared to support that process and the outcome, and that is exactly what we will do.

Charlotte Leslie: The EU’s security is only as strong as its weakest border, so does the Prime Minister share my concerns not only over Chancellor Merkel’s apparent legitimisation of President Erdogan’s reservations about freedom of

David Cameron: First, it is certainly true that a country in the Schengen zone is only as strong as its weakest border—that is absolutely right—but we, of course, are not in the Schengen zone. Secondly, the Schengen zone has decided to offer visas to Turkish nationals, but we have not made that decision, and will not be making that decision. Let us remember, however, that a visa is not a right to go and live and work or reside; it is a right to visit, so let us also be clear that Turks with visas visiting Schengen countries do not have those rights or the right automatically to come to Britain. It is very important to get this clear.

John Spellar: In the last hour, we have had the devastating news that British Gas proposes to close its Oldbury site, with the loss of 700 jobs. Will the Prime Minister instruct his Ministers immediately to contact the company and the unions and to arrange urgent meetings either—preferably—to save these jobs or, if that proves impossible, to establish a taskforce to create alternative opportunities for this loyal and hard-working workforce

David Cameron: I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I heard the news shortly before Question Time. We will make sure that a ministerial taskforce is available to talk to the company and the local community and to provide assistance in terms of retraining and other things.

Kenneth Clarke: Mrs Thatcher used occasionally to organise seminars for Ministers, with senior academics, for colleagues like me whose knowledge of modern science, she thought, needed to be improved. Will the Prime Minister contemplate similar seminars for some of his senior and very respected Cabinet colleagues with businessmen on the nature of international trade in today’s world, because some very respected figures appear to believe that one simply turns up and sells goods and services that comply with British-made rules, and that they do not have to comply with any rules agreed with the country to which one is selling. Will he include some of the many businessmen who are putting investment decisions on hold now because of the uncertainty about Brexit after 23 June, which illustrates the dangers we would run if we made our whole future trading arrangements with the outside world as uncertain as some people are trying to make them?

David Cameron: I always listen very carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend and will consider such seminars. I hope they will not be as frightening as seminars sometimes used to be under Margaret Thatcher. I remember that one of the very first times I met her, I was responsible for trade and industry research. She asked me what the day’s trade figures were and I did not know. I have never wanted the floor to open up and swallow me any more than at that moment.
The point my right hon. and learned Friend makes, which is absolutely right, is that just because we have friendly relations with a country does not mean that we automatically get good trade relations. We are very pleased that President Obama is coming here this Friday, but it is worth noting that even though we have the friendliest relations with the United States of America, we currently cannot sell beef or lamb to it. The point is that we do not just need good relations; we need nailed down trade arrangements.

Imran Hussain: At the Budget, the Chancellor announced the creation of a northern schools strategy, which I broadly welcome. However, I am concerned that all the progress that  that might make could be reversed by the forced academisation plans. Why are the Government pushing those plans, which parents in my constituency do not want—plans that even a former Tory Education Secretary describes as plain daft and unnecessary

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman should wait for the outcome of the review that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set up. The point I would make is that some schools that have been failing for year after year have been left in that state by local authorities. We have found that the way to help succeeding schools fly and failing schools to improve is to have academies. The evidence is right there in front of us. That is why we are so keen on progressing this.

Liam Fox: One reason why my right hon. Friend led this party to victory at last year’s general election was our pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands. Can he therefore tell us, further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), why the Office for Budget Responsibility projects immigration to be above 200,000 a year for the rest of this decade? By what assumptions did it reach that figure, and can he give us some details?

David Cameron: To give my right hon. Friend some details, the OBR did not take into account, for instance, the agreements we have just reached with the European Union over welfare and other immigration restrictions. The Treasury document is very clear that it is not about making all sorts of different assumptions about variables, but takes a very clear set of statistics established by the OBR. That is why it was interesting when the Governor of the Bank of England came out and said that it was an analytically robust process. As for the detail, it does not take into account the agreement that we reached in Europe.

Stella Creasy: In 2009, Michelle Samaraweera was brutally raped and murdered in Walthamstow. Since 2011, a man who is wanted in connection with that crime and seven other counts of sexual violence in my constituency has been evading extradition from India. There have been more than 30 court appearances to date and another one is planned for tomorrow, yet despite the severity of the crime and the delay in those proceedings, there is no record of any ministerial or diplomatic representations from either the Foreign Office or the Home Office. Will the Prime Minister personally commit today to putting

David Cameron: I am very happy to give the hon. Lady that assurance. The British Government always raise all these individual cases if that is what the victims want us to do, just as we raise cases where there are British people stuck in the Indian justice system. I was not aware of the specific case, but if she gives me the details I will make sure that we raise it appropriately.

Henry Smith: With the President of the United States visiting the UK later this week, may I ask my right hon. Friend to raise the issue of the Chagos islanders? In a report last year, the Government rightly concluded that the islanders have a right of resettlement. Given the US military presence on Diego Garcia, will he raise the case of US assistance for the right of return of the Chagos islanders to the British Indian Ocean Territory?

David Cameron: I will certainly discuss that issue, and it is right that my hon. Friend raises it, because many Chagossians live in his constituency of Crawley. What he said is not entirely correct; the National Security Council and the Cabinet have been looking at the situation of the Chagos islanders and reviewing all the options for how we can help with their future. Those discussions have taken place and obviously we need to come to a conclusion about the best way forward.

Helen Goodman: Some people think that the worst case that has been made so far to vote to leave the EU is the claim that England is an island. Will the Prime Minister tell the House the worst argument that he has heard from the Brexiters

David Cameron: I think it is probably that we would get out of the Eurovision song contest. Not only would that be incredibly sad, but given that Israel and Azerbaijan, and anyone anywhere near Europe seems to be able to enter—[Interruption.] Australia, too, so we are pretty safe from that one.

Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend point out to President Obama that in a series of European Court judgments such as those in the cases of Davis and of Schrems, using EU data protection laws and the EU charter of fundamental rights, the EU has established its jurisdiction over our intelligence data and sought to prevent our intelligence sharing with the United States? Will he therefore warn the President that if we vote remain, far from gaining influence in the EU the United States will lose control and influence over her closest ally?

David Cameron: I am sure that the President will take all of these calculations into account before saying anything that he might have to say. Let me just make two points. First of all, this decision is a decision for the British people, and the British people alone. We are sovereign in making this decision. Personally, I believe that we should listen to advice from friends and other countries, and I struggle to find a leader of any friendly  country who thinks we should leave. My second point is that, when it comes to the United States, it is worth looking at what so many Treasury Secretaries have said, going back over Republican or Democrat Administrations. It may not be the determining factor for many people—or indeed for any people—but listening to what our friends in the world say is not a bad idea.

Meg Hillier: The average property price in my borough of Hackney is £682,000, the median lower quartile rent for a two-bedroom flat for a month is £1,500, and overcrowding and demand for social housing are the highest I have seen in 20 years. Will the Prime Minister tell my constituents how on earth the Housing and Planning Bill is going to help them

David Cameron: It is going to help them because we are building starter homes for the first time for people to buy, we are extending the right to buy to housing association tenants so they can buy homes—[Interruption.] I notice Lady Nugee giving us the benefit of her wisdom, but many people in her constituency would love to buy a council house or a housing association house. We also have the Help to Buy scheme, which is helping many people get on the housing ladder, and shared ownership as well. All of those things will help. Since 2010, 101,000 homes have been built in London, including 67,000 affordable homes. We need to build many more and to make them accessible to people who work hard and do the right thing. That is whose side we are on.

Rebecca Pow: On a slightly environmental note still, woodland is much valued—not least for recycling much of our hot air—and ancient woodland is especially valued. With only 2% remaining, it is as precious as the rain forests and its biodiversity cannot be replaced. The Prime Minister has 331 ancient and veteran trees in his constituency; does he agree that this precious habitat ought to be protected in line with heritage sites and national monuments?

David Cameron: I am very lucky to have in my constituency an ancient forest, the Wychwood forest, which probably contains many of the trees that my hon. Friend mentions. I shall look carefully at what she says. Perhaps the most important thing we can do is to make sure that we plant more forests, trees and woodland, on which this Government have a very good record.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said recently and rightly that politics in Northern Ireland was on a more stable footing than it has been for some time. For our part, we will continue to offer strong leadership for a better future in Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland are, however, concerned about a two-sided approach to the past, as exemplified by the decision taken this week to investigate a police officer who bravely stopped an IRA bomber from trying to kill police officers at a police station 25 years ago. Does the Prime Minister agree that we have to get behind our security forces, praise them for the work they did in Northern Ireland and not persecute them as we go forward?

David Cameron: Let me first pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and his Members of Parliament and Assembly Members. It is right to say that politics in Northern Ireland is more stable and, frankly, more productive than it has been for many years. Obviously,  these issues around the acts of the past still cause a huge amount of pain and difficulty on all sides of the debate. One thing we have to hold on to is the fact that we have an independent and impartial justice system.

BORDER FORCE BUDGET 2016-17

Andy Burnham: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement setting out the details of the Border Force Budget for 2016-17.

Theresa May: The first priority of government is the safety and security of its citizens, and the Government have always made the integrity of the UK border a priority. We will never compromise on keeping the people of this country safe from terrorism, criminality and illegal immigration.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will publish the Treasury main supply estimates in just over an hour’s time, setting out estimated budget allocations for the whole of government, including Border Force, for the financial year 2016-17. In advance of those figures being laid in the Library, I can inform Members that these estimates will show that the indicative budget for Border Force is £558.1 million in 2016-17—a 0.4% reduction in overall resource spending compared to the supplementary estimate for 2015-16. At the same time, we will increase capital spending at the border by just over 70%, from £40.1 million in 2015-16 to an estimated £68.3 million in 2016-17. That means that Border Force spending is, to all intents and purposes, protected compared to 2015-16, with increased capital investment to improve the technology at the border, to improve security and intelligence and to strengthen control.
Over the next four years, we will invest £130 million in state-of-the-art technology at the border. Since I became Home Secretary six years ago, we have pursued an ambitious programme of reform at the border to keep this country safe. In the last Parliament we abolished the dysfunctional UK Border Agency, set up by the last Labour Government, and made Border Force directly accountable to Ministers within the Home Office. Since then, Border Force has transformed its working practices, command and control and leadership, and we have invested in new technology such as e-gates at airports and heartbeat monitors at freight ports to improve security, prevent illegal entry to the UK, benefit passengers and deliver efficiencies.
At the same time I have worked closely with my French counterpart, Bernard Cazeneuve, to secure the juxtaposed controls in Calais and Coquelles, reduce the number of migrants attempting to reach the United Kingdom, and safeguard UK drivers and hauliers travelling through those ports. We have developed a robust, intelligence-led approach to organised crime at the border, working closely with the National Crime Agency, which we established in 2012. We have supported greater collaboration between counter-terrorism police and Border Force, while increasing counter-terrorism budgets to prevent foreign fighters from returning and dangerous terrorists from travelling to the UK.
These reforms are working. Border security has been enhanced. Border Force continues to perform 100% checks on scheduled passengers arriving at primary check- points in the UK. When passengers are deemed a threat to public safety, we can and do exclude them from the UK, and 99,020 people have been refused entry to  the UK since 2010. We are disrupting more organised crime at the UK border than ever before. In the past year, Border Force has seized nearly 8 tonnes of class A drugs, more than 2.5 times as much as in 2009-10. Meanwhile, legitimate passengers and hauliers of goods continue to be provided with excellent levels of service.
The Government remain committed to making further investments when necessary to exploit new technology and strengthen controls. As a result, Border Force will grow more efficient year on year, while improving security for the safety of citizens, businesses and the country as a whole.

Andy Burnham: Finally, an answer—and yet another U-turn—from the Home Secretary. Let us be clear: it is Labour pressure that has brought her to the House today, and Labour pressure that has made her back down on her planned deeper cuts in the UK border. Just as we forced her to U-turn on police funding, we have now forced her to U-turn on the Border Force budget. She has spent the last two weeks ducking and diving, refusing to answer questions that I put to her in the House and that the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), put to her senior officials—I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his determination. Why could the Home Secretary not answer our questions? Because she has been furiously back-pedalling for the last two weeks, and patching up holes in the Border Force budget.
Let us be clear about what has just been announced to the House. The Home Secretary has announced a revenue cut in the Border Force budget. Let me put that into context. She has announced a budget of £558 million. In 2012-13, the budget was £617 million. It has fallen by more than £50 million on her watch. That is this Home Secretary’s record on border funding. How can she justify it when the terror threat has been increasing all the time? Will she guarantee, on the back of the budget that has been announced today, that there will be no cuts in the number of front-line immigration officers, and that officers will not be replaced by less-trained staff?
The bigger question, however, is whether the budget that the Home Secretary has announced is anywhere near enough. Today, a group of the most eminent police and counter-terrorism experts have written an open letter saying that attacks in Paris and Brussels must be
“a wake-up call for the British Government”
on lax border security.
Worryingly, the letter reveals that the National Crime Agency has evidence that people-traffickers are now specifically targeting weaker sea ports. I have repeatedly warned the Home Secretary about that. Will she accept the call from the group of experts for a review of border security, and for extra resources to plug the gaps?
Those gaps are very real. A whistleblower working at the port of Immingham, the country’s largest freight port, has been in touch with me to reveal that the staff of ferry companies, who are carrying out the Home Secretary’s border exit checks, are simply not trained to do it; that the passports of lorry drivers are not checked on arrival by anyone; and, worst of all, that school leavers are now being recruited to check passports,   replacing experienced border officers. Border security on the cheap: that is the reality of what is happening at Britain’s borders today, under this Home Secretary. It is the direct consequence of the cuts that she has already made in the UK border during her time in office—and, unbelievably, she wanted to make even further cuts in the border before we in the Labour party stopped her.
The Home Secretary has spent the last two weeks running scared, scrabbling for loose change behind the back of the Home Office sofa; but, worse, she has weakened our borders, has damaged our security, and is only now pledging to stop the cuts. On an issue of such importance to the British public, she is going to have to do a lot better than this.

Theresa May: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that in so much of what he said he simply does not know what he is talking about. He talks about U-turns on funding, but the only such U-turn we have seen is from a Labour Front-Bench team that now claim to have wanted police funding to remain steady and not to be cut when they actually suggested that police funding could take a 10% cut.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about border security and the National Crime Agency, but I remind him that it was the coalition Government and me as Home Secretary who set up the NCA. The reason why we have a border command that is looking at serious and organised crime across our borders is because of what the Conservatives have done in government. Labour did none of that in 13 long years.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman, who was of course at one time a Home Office Minister, that it was under Labour that we saw the creation of the dysfunctional UK Border Agency that we had to abolish. We had to change how we dealt with such issues. Under the last Labour Government, there was no operating mandate at the border, and as people came through the primary checkpoints, they were not all getting the necessary 100% checks. We have enhanced security and will continue to do so.

Philip Hollobone: My constituents in Kettering are concerned that we should have the most secure and safest borders possible. While it is true that many illegal immigrants are stopped in lorries in France and on arrival in Britain, far too many illegal immigrants are still in the backs of lorries when they go down the A14 past Kettering towards the north of England or wherever. What more can the Home Secretary do to reassure my constituents that we are going to get even tougher on and stop illegal immigration, which also has a security implication?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is important that we continually review our processes for screening people as they cross the border, and that we ensure that we are stopping people who want to come here as illegal immigrants. That is one reason why we have invested tens of millions of pounds in security at Calais and Coquelles to ensure that it is harder for people to get into lorries to come across the border and harder for them to access the channel tunnel. It is also why we continue to look at improvements in technology that may enable us to put in place equipment that is even better at detecting people when they try to stow  away in such vehicles. However, we cannot do that once and expect it to cover everything; we have to keep going at it, which is exactly what we are doing.

Joanna Cherry: This has been a sorry saga, and it is still not quite clear why the senior civil servant was so evasive before the Home Affairs Committee. What exactly was the hold -p? The Border Force budget requires careful scrutiny and attracts significant public interest. What will the Home Secretary do to make the process for deciding the budget more transparent in future?
What lies underneath the issue is that a fantasy net migration target and budget cuts are leading the Home Office down the path of targeting exactly the wrong people, using the wrong policy levers. Unable to enforce existing immigration rules properly, the Home Office introduces ever more draconian rules, clamping down on skilled workers, students, spouses and refugees. It is using landlords and landladies as border officials and giving immigration officers police powers. Meanwhile, other SNP MPs and I saw with our own eyes in Calais and Dunkirk at Easter how vulnerable children who have family here in the United Kingdom are left in the most disgraceful of conditions. It is immigration control on the cheap.
When will the Home Secretary fix her Border Force budget not to satisfy the ideological pursuit of austerity, but at the level necessary to command public confidence? When will she abandon the fantasy net migration target and set immigration policies in accordance with evidence instead of political expediency?

Theresa May: The hon. and learned Lady mixes up border security and checks with immigration. They are two different issues. She commented on the appearance of a senior civil servant before the Home Affairs Committee. When asked whether the director general of Border Force had been told what his budget was for this year, the individual replied:
“We know what funds the Border Force needs in order to deliver the plan for this year and Charles has them.”
On a related immigration issue, the hon. and learned Lady referred to the question she has raised previously, as have other Members, about the speed at which children in Calais who have family members here in the UK are being processed. We recognised that there was an issue, which is why we seconded somebody to the Ministry of the Interior in Paris to work on this and why we are now seeing people being processed in weeks, rather than months, and in some cases in days .

Tim Loughton: There is nothing worse in this House than manufactured rage at a problem such as this, and I note that the shadow Home Secretary made not a single mention of praise for the excellent job our Border Force staff are doing, which members of the Home Affairs Committee saw in our visit to Calais and Coquelles—it is not through a lack of thoroughness that any drugs or people are getting through. Will she also acknowledge the need to be more flexible, given the increasing number of cases of independent vessels coming across the channel to the Sussex and Kent coasts, in particular? We need to be mindful of that, too.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I echo the comments he has made; our Border Force staff are working day in, day out to protect our border and they do an excellent job. He is right, however, that we always need to be flexible in looking at where people will try to enter the UK as we make ports such as Calais more secure. That is exactly what we are doing. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has been talking to our Belgian and Dutch counterparts about access from ports in those countries into the UK. The whole point of some of the changes we have made in Border Force has been precisely to make it more flexible, in order to respond to need as it arises.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Home Secretary for the detail she has provided to the House today and I join others in praising the work of Border Force, especially the leadership provided by Sir Charles Montgomery. Will she deal with the practical points mentioned last week by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and today by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone)? Will she confirm that there are 100% checks on every lorry entering this country, in order to deal with the security and immigration issues? Does she agree that although we have spent a huge amount of money in Calais, we have displaced this problem further into other ports in Europe, and without the co-operation of European partners—without them doing their bit—we will still get people coming into this country who should not be here?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the questions from not only my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) this afternoon, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). The point I made subsequently, outside this Chamber, to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough is that we do undertake checks on lorries but that they vary, so different sorts of checks may be done. Different technologies are used, and in some cases we use dogs. A variety of types of check may be undertaken at the border for the lorries. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that, as I have just indicated in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), it is necessary for us to be looking at where there may be displacement of people trying to enter the UK illegally. That is precisely what we have been doing, particularly, as I said, with the Governments of Belgium and the Netherlands.

Christopher Chope: Cuts were made in January by Border Force to the maritime aerial surveillance capability. Has my right hon. Friend been able to reinstate that capability, which is crucial in detecting people who are trying to smuggle into our country and was instrumental in ensuring some of the successes to which she referred earlier?

Theresa May: I reassure my hon. Friend that we are maintaining the capabilities he talked about, but we are delivering them in a different way. He and I have discussed a particular contract that is no longer in place. What Border Force has done is look to see how it can work in a variety of ways to provide that capability, including, obviously, by working with the Royal Navy.

Paul Flynn: Last year, an asylum seeker was located in my constituency because the courts said it would be unsafe to relocate him in London. He subsequently committed a number of crimes and is now in prison. My constituents have had the burdens on our health service and on our schools of taking 500 asylum seekers and many others over the years. Will the Home Secretary tell me what moves she is making to ensure that there is a fair distribution throughout the UK of asylum seekers, given that there are 500 in my constituency and I believe there are none in either the Prime Minister’s or Chancellor’s? How many are in her constituency?

Theresa May: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, my constituency is not somewhere that normally takes asylum seekers, but I am pleased to say that it is taking some of the Syrian refugees under the resettlement scheme that has been put in place. The point is that we talk regularly with local authorities about where it is appropriate for asylum seekers to be dispersed to. Those conversations are continuing and I am pleased to say that a number of new local authorities have come on board. I also gently remind him that we have not changed the system of asylum dispersal; this is exactly the same system that was run by the last Labour Government.

David Nuttall: Millions of pounds could be saved for the Border Force budget by having a more efficient removals system. What steps will my right hon. Friend be taking in the light of the findings of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration in his report issued last month?

Theresa May: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we continually look at how we can improve our ability to remove people from this country. That is why we have brought forward changes in a variety of immigration Bills to enhance our ability to do that and, in particular, to make it harder for people to live illegally in the UK. The decisions put through in the Immigration Act 2014 to deal with people’s access to driving licences, bank accounts and rented property are all having an impact in improving our ability to identify illegal immigrants and remove them.

Tom Brake: On that point, how many more staff could be deployed to police our borders if the Government were to scrap the landlords’ helpline and use that resource instead to more securely police our borders?

Theresa May: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to ensure the security of this country and have illegal immigrants removed from it, he should know that the measures we have put in place in the Immigration Act to ensure that people who are renting property are here legally are having an impact.

James Berry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK has the strongest borders in Europe, partly because of the Government’s investment in technology at our borders and partly because of the Conservative party’s firm position that we should not join the Schengen system?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. It is crucial that we have not joined the Schengen system and that we will not do so. It means that we retain control at our borders.

Melanie Onn: Constituents who work on the docks in Grimsby have contacted me in the past few weeks because they are concerned about the level of security around the large transporter ships that arrive into Grimsby bringing millions of pounds’-worth of goods into the country. They raise those concerns from a humanitarian perspective, but can the Home Secretary assure my constituents that Grimsby’s ports are adequately protected?

Theresa May: As I have indicated, we look at the border security at ports regularly to ensure that it is appropriate for the nature of the business those ports are undertaking. The hon. Lady refers to the humanitarian issue of people who may be being smuggled across the border in transporters, and I say to her that the people who are responsible for that issue are the traffickers who put illegal immigrants into those containers.

Simon Hoare: There was indeed praise for my right hon. Friend from the shadow Home Secretary, although it was so below the radar that she might not have noticed it. She was accused of both back-pedalling and performing a U-turn, and I am not aware that it is physically possible to do both—although she has done neither. In praising the work that Border Force does on behalf of all of us in keeping our country safe, what role does she see the Investigatory Powers Bill, which is currently before the House, playing in assisting and strengthening the work of Border Force?

Theresa May: It is important that all our law enforcement agencies and those who are responsible for enforcing laws around security at our borders are able to access the various tools and powers that they need. That is why the Investigatory Powers Bill is so important, not just to our security services, but to a variety of law enforcement agencies. I note that one of the points in the letter in today’s Daily Telegraph to which the shadow Home Secretary referred was the importance of access to communications data, which is precisely what we are trying to protect in that Bill.

Patrick Grady: I recently flew back into Gatwick from overseas, and it took me almost 25 minutes to get through the border. There were 15 desks for staff, only eight of which were open. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am a relaxed and patient kind of guy, and I am always happy to wait my turn, but families with children, business people and tourists from all over the world were there. What kind of a message does that send about the welcome to the United Kingdom and the efficiency of our Border Force, and how will this budget help to remedy those kinds of inefficiencies?

Theresa May: There are service standards for people coming through the border at our airports, and we meet those standards. These proceedings are very interesting because, on the one hand, people are calling for more  border security, and, on the other, the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to get through the border rather more quickly.

John Bercow: I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman always looks to be a happy chappie.

Martin Vickers: I can confirm that the shadow Home Secretary was quite right when he drew attention to the port of Immingham in my constituency because border staff there do have worries. The concerns of residents in the town and neighbouring areas have been heightened following reports last week that the National Crime Agency acknowledged that Humber ports were being targeted. Can my right hon. Friend give an absolute assurance that resources will be moved to protect the Humber ports if the NCA’s analysis is correct?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend’s point is important and one that I have responded to in reply to a number of questions, including that of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. When we created Border Force and took it out of the dysfunctional UK Borders Agency, we introduced more flexibility in Border Force’s ability to move resources around the country. That is absolutely crucial so that we do not just have static forces at a number of ports and we are able to move them when there is a need to do so, which is exactly what we are doing in relation to the ports on the east coast, of which Immingham is one.

Gavin Robinson: As the Home Secretary knows, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with a land border with another country. As both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland lie outside Schengen, co-operation is key. Last week, a representative of Garda Siochana said that they felt hopelessly ill equipped and ill resourced to stand against the threat of terrorists entering the United Kingdom through their borders. Will the Home Secretary address the issue, and can she given any comfort about whether the budget involves proposals or resources to make that access point to the United Kingdom less vulnerable?

Theresa May: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are in regular discussions with the Irish Government about how to improve security at their external border because, obviously, there is the common travel area between Ireland and the United Kingdom. We have already done a lot of work with the Irish Government on data sharing and the sorts of systems that might support improved security, and we will continue that work.

Henry Smith: In contrast to some hon. Members who have spoken, I wish to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of Border Force officers at Gatwick, especially with regard to their recent apprehension of terror suspects. May I have an assurance that they will continue to get the support that they need from the Home Office?

Theresa May: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As I have said, we now have a Border Force that is more flexible and that is able to use its resources appropriately. The director general is continually looking to ensure  that resources are appropriate at ports and commensurate with the traffic that they are experiencing. He rightly praises the Border Force officers at Gatwick who, along with those elsewhere, do an excellent job.

Steve McCabe: When will the Home Secretary make a statement on allegations that lapses under her watch allowed terrorists Abdelhamid Abaaoud and Mohamed Abrini to breach this country’s border security?

Theresa May: I say to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, in terms of border security and stopping people crossing the border, what is important is not just that we have a border control, as we do by not being a member of the Schengen border-free zone, but that information is exchanged between the parties when that is available. That is exactly what we are working on to ensure that information is available at our borders when we want to be able to stop people.

Richard Burden: May I put it to the Home Secretary that I do not think that she has yet fully answered the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee about 100% checks on trucks? I accept the issue about flexibility, as we might have different situations in different places, but does she accept that there is genuine concern about security in ports up and down the country? How is the cumulative cut to the revenue budget of the Border Force compatible with providing the necessary level of security?

Theresa May: On that last point, I must say to the Labour party, as we have said before regarding a number of other areas, that it is about not how much money we have, but how we spend it. It is about ensuring that we are using money as effectively and efficiently as possible. Ensuring that we have an operating mandate that means that 100% checks on individuals are undertaken at primary checkpoints is something that this Government have introduced and that the previous Labour Government failed to do. All the trucks going through the juxtaposed controls are indeed screened.

Andrew Gwynne: Over Easter, a number of my constituents were incredibly frustrated at Manchester airport when they were queuing to go through passport control solely because that passport control was significantly under-resourced. What reassurance can the Home Secretary give that Manchester airport, which after all is our largest international airport outside London, will have adequate resources at its passport control? While she is looking into that, will she also look at the loophole at terminal 3 whereby passengers who transit from Heathrow and have their baggage  sent directly through to Manchester do not have to go through a customs check?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman asks about the resources at Manchester airport. I can assure him that we regularly have discussions with Manchester airport about the traffic that is going through it and its requirements, and we judge the appropriate resources that are needed by Border Force. We fully recognise the significance of Manchester airport to which he refers.

Mike Kane: A recent watchdog study into Border Force at Manchester airport showed that one in four passengers from the sample taken got through the border inappropriately, that a whole Ryanair flight was recently missed, with 159 passengers receiving no checks whatsoever, and that £1.5 million was spent on sniffer dogs that—guess what?—sniffed out no class A drugs or terrorists. Meanwhile, business passengers and tourists are suffering interminable delays. The airport is suffering because of a lack of investment in Border Force. The Home Secretary might have protected the budget, but it is not making any improvement whatsoever to a very poor existing service. What does she say about that?

Theresa May: I will say to the hon. Gentleman exactly what I said to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). As Manchester airport expands, we will talk to the officials there and discuss what resources they consider necessary. The issue of a misdirected flight to which he refers is something that we have taken up with Manchester airport with regard to the staff whom it has on the ground to deal with these flights. This is an important issue and we are very serious about how we deal with it.

Toby Perkins: I concur with the commendations of colleagues for the excellent work that is done by border staff, but numbers are also important—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. A rather unseemly exchange is going on between the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who has just put a question and was dissatisfied with the answer, and the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) who, in the exercise of his duties as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary, always feels compelled to display a level of fealty unsurpassed and indeed unequalled by any other Member of the House of Commons. That is not necessary. We all know of the fealty bordering on the obsequious that is on evident display from the hon. Gentleman on a daily basis, but it must not be allowed to interrupt the eloquence of the flow of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins)—or even the flow of his eloquence.

Toby Perkins: I will endeavour to re-find myself, Mr Speaker.
The Prime Minister received a report from experts saying that 30,000 was the right number of Border Force members to protect our borders. Does that still reflect the policy of the Government, and can the Home Secretary tell us how many border staff we currently have?

Theresa May: The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers proposed the creation of an entirely new police force at the borders. When we came into government and looked at what was necessary, we decided to approach the issue in a slightly different way, creating the National Crime Agency and a specific border command within it. The staff operating at borders are not just Border Force, but border command from the NCA and special branch at the ports, and, of course, they also work with  immigration enforcement. For the first time in this country, we have a specific border command within the National Crime Agency.

BILL PRESENTED

Property Ownership in London (Registration) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Frank Field, supported by Mr David Lammy, Andrew Rosindell, Mr Gareth Thomas, Tom Brake, Siobhain McDonagh, Wes Streeting, Stephen Timms, Jon Cruddas, Stephen Pound and Mr Virendra Sharma, presented a Bill to require the creation of a register of owners of property in the Greater London area, including details of the name of the owner of each property and the name of the beneficiary owner in the case of properties owned by a trust or similar body; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May, and to be printed (Bill 163).

FORENSIC LINGUISTICS (STANDARDS)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Roger Mullin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on the forensic science regulator to establish a code of practice and conduct for the providers and practitioners of forensic linguistics in the criminal justice system; to make provision about the required scientific quality standards for the discipline; and for connected purposes.
Our children and young people face an enormous threat from being groomed by radical extremists and paedophiles, facilitated by the internet, social media and mobile technology. The Bill is therefore about the protection of vulnerable people, and it is about the monitoring and analysis of communications between people about whom we need to be really concerned: people who plot and scheme to do others harm; people such as paedophiles and extremists; and people who use modern technology as a tool in their evil business.
Last October, I led a Westminster Hall debate on the use of children as suicide bombers. We know that many of the techniques used in recruiting and grooming such children are the same as those used by paedophiles. We also know that there is software available that will identify the messages and language of groomers, and that, using a variety of tools, security agencies can match those to the voice and language patterns of known individuals. Forensic linguistics is a complicated and relatively new field. Linguistic evidence can involve science, social science and interpretation, and forensic linguistic analyses require a complex set of knowledge and skills. Presently, however, anyone—including you or me, Mr Speaker—can proclaim themselves an expert in forensic linguistics. Consequently, there is a considerable danger of substandard analysis being offered in a court of law.
We need a standardised qualification for analysts and a standardised set of techniques to give the courts confidence that such evidence can be accepted as more than just interesting background. The Bill does not represent sophisticated legislation, as compiling a statutory register would be relatively straightforward. The register called for by the Bill would not need its own regulator, as one already exists: the forensic science regulator. She is already working on including speech and audio analysis as a recognised speciality area, but as textual linguistic analysis draws on interpretative as well as scientific methods, it falls outside her current remit.
I would also draw attention to current codes of practice and conduct for forensic science providers and practitioners, and more generally for expert witnesses in the criminal justice system, that could be adapted to include the practice of forensic linguistics. For setting the accredited qualifications, there are academic institutions with evident authority in this area, such as the centre for forensic linguistics at Aston University. I personally thank the director of the centre, Professor Tim Grant, for his help in developing the Bill. I am also grateful for encouragement from the president of the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences and the director of forensic services in Scotland, Mr Tom Nelson. The standard of specialist witnesses and forensic scientists themselves is  inherently protean—I know of some people who call themselves forensic scientists, but cannot tell the difference between the sensitivity of a test and the specificity of a test, let alone calculate its predictive value.
I have already said that speech and audio analysis and textual analysis are two different things. The problem for textual forensic linguistics is that many aspects of the work—the determination of meanings in messages, profiling the background of a writer and so on—are a long way from the laboratory-based paradigm. The closest we get to laboratory-based science is in comparative authorship analysis, for which methods are published and tested. The diversity of questions that forensic linguists address and the approaches that they take to those questions means that the forensic science regulator does not cover their work, so there is no way for high-quality practitioners to be identified and used and low-quality practitioners avoided.
There is a need for a mechanism to recognise what should count as quality work in textual forensic linguistics. That could be a register of individuals or methods, or both. The obvious person to hold that would be the forensic science regulator, but that would definitely represent an extension of her current role, hence the need for the Bill.
Where is the proof, however, that forensic linguistic analysis can work? In those cases in which forensic linguistic evidence has been allowed in court, it has proved particularly valuable. For example, it was used in the appeals of Derek Bentley and the Birmingham Six. In many instances across the UK, it has been used to determine the authorship of SMS text messages in murder cases. It has been used to extract the meaning of coded texts and slang terms used in internet chatrooms, often involving conspiracies to murder and child sex abuse conversations. Good forensic linguistic evidence has withstood appeal, yet this excellent work could be undermined due to substandard analysis by poorly qualified and unqualified practitioners.
Although it has strong roots in the UK, textual forensic linguistic evidence is increasingly accepted internationally. Examples of its use include successful appeals against murder convictions in Australia and cases of disputed wills in South Africa. In 1996 in the United States, textual forensic linguistic analysis was used to identify the writer of the Unabomber’s manifesto as Ted Kaczynski, and he was subsequently convicted of running a bombing campaign across the country.
In the United Kingdom, too, textual forensic linguistics has been used in investigations of serious counter-terrorism cases. In 2004, for example, Dhiren Barot was arrested  in London and charged on the basis of linguistic evidence linking him to the writing of a conspiracy document. He later admitted to plotting to bomb the New York stock exchange, the International Monetary Fund headquarters and the World Bank, among other targets.
The United Kingdom’s forensic science regulator role was created in 2007 by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). It is good that some progress has been made, but on this issue, Mr Speaker, it is time to put the regulator to work. The Bill would enable the statutory agencies to use information and evidence that they gather through the medium of forensic linguistics to protect more children from predatory adults, and to protect the British public from the likelihood of events such as those that happened recently in Brussels, Paris, Istanbul, Kabul and Pakistan. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Roger Mullin, Ian Blackford, Drew Hendry, Lady Hermon, John Mann, Michelle Thomson and Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg present the Bill.
Roger Mullin accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May, and to be printed (Bill 164).

Energy Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Energy Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 18 January 2016 (Energy Bill [Lords] (Programme)) and 14 March 2016 (Energy Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Message
1. Any Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
2. Proceedings on that Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.
3. The Message shall be considered in the following order: Commons Amendment No. 7, Commons Amendment No. 6, Commons Amendment No. 8, Commons Amendment No. 2.
Subsequent stages
4. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
5. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. (Stephen Barclay.)
Question agreed to.

ENERGY BILL [LORDS]

Consideration of Lords message
After clause 79

Onshore wind power: circumstances in which certificates may be issued after 31 March 2016

Andrea Leadsom: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 7A.

John Bercow: With this we will consider the following:
Lords amendments 7B to 7S.
Lords amendment 7T, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 7U to 7W, 6A and 6B, 8A to 8C and Lords amendment 2A.
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 2A. If the House agrees it, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.

Andrea Leadsom: To deliver on our manifesto commitment, the Government remain determined to bring forward the closure of the renewables obligation to new onshore wind in Great Britain. This commitment is based on plans that were signalled well before the general election last year, and that should not have come as a surprise to hon. Members or to industry.
Back in March 2015, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), then Minister for Energy and Climate Change, stated in this House:
“We have made it absolutely clear that we will remove onshore wind subsidies in the future”.—[Official Report, 6 March 2015; Vol. 293, c. 1227-28.]
Prior to that, in December 2014, the Prime Minister, speaking of wind farms, stated in the House of Commons Liaison Committee:
“we don’t need to have more of these subsidised onshore. So let’s get rid of the subsidy”.
We have been absolutely clear all along. The Government’s policy is to bring forward the closure of the renewables obligation to new onshore wind.
To protect investor confidence, the Government have proposed a grace period for those projects meeting certain conditions as at 18 June last year, as outlined in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on that date. The grace period provisions are intended to protect those projects that, at 18 June last year, already had relevant planning consents; a grid connection offer and acceptance of that offer, or confirmation that no grid connection was required; and access to land rights.

Simon Hoare: As my hon. Friend said before setting out that list of warnings, and as we discussed in Committee, the proposals were in our manifesto, which commanded the support of the British people. Does she agree that we are again on thin ice,  with the other place trying to interfere with the Government’s agenda, which has already been voted on by the British people?

Andrea Leadsom: Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right. This is a manifesto commitment. Peers should listen to the manifesto commitment of this Government and respect it; that is normal practice, as I understand it.
The Government have taken action on a key concern raised by industry about an investment freeze. The clauses are therefore intended to ensure that projects that meet the core grace period criteria, and which were intended to be able to access the grace period as proposed, are not frozen out of the process. Since proposing this measure, the Government have continued to receive representations from industry suggesting that it supports and welcomes the proposals to address the investment freeze. The Government have also put in place a provision to ensure that an existing grace period for delays caused by grid or radar works will continue to apply.
We now need to get on and complete this Bill. As the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell) said in Committee, speaking for the Scottish National party:
“We agree that swift passage of the Bill with clear and consistent RO grace period provisions is needed in order to provide certainty to investors in the onshore wind sector as quickly as possible. The renewables industry fears that the longer legislative uncertainty over RO closure persists, the greater the risk of otherwise eligible projects running out of time to deliver under the proposed grace periods.”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 2 February 2016; c. 217.]
He is right.
In addition, these clauses give the Secretary of State a power to make regulations that would prevent electricity suppliers in Great Britain from using Northern Ireland renewables obligation certificates relating to electricity generated by new onshore wind stations and any additional capacity added to existing wind stations after the onshore wind closure date. This is a backstop power that would be used only if Northern Ireland did not close its RO to new onshore wind on equivalent terms to Great Britain.
Since our last debate on this issue, I am pleased to say that the RO in Northern Ireland has closed to large-scale new onshore wind stations with a capacity above 5 MW with effect from 1 April 2016. The Northern Ireland Executive are currently consulting on closing to stations at 5 MW and below.

Sylvia Hermon: On the response of the Northern Ireland Executive, we are going into Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, so will the Minister confirm that this is almost too late for the present Northern Ireland Executive? She wants the Bill to be rushed through and completed, but we will not have a running Executive in Northern Ireland until at least a fortnight after the Northern Ireland Assembly elections.

Andrea Leadsom: I do not agree that we are rushing the Bill through; there has been an enormous amount of time for consultation and discussion. As I said, the Northern Ireland Executive are consulting on closing the RO to stations at 5 MW and below. I can assure all   hon. Members that the Government continue to engage with Northern Ireland with a view to effecting closure on equivalent terms to Great Britain.
Since our last debate on this policy in this House, the Government have introduced two further small changes to the Bill. These will provide for the provisions on the early closure of the RO to new onshore wind in Great Britain, the related grace period provisions, and the backstop power relating to the RO in Northern Ireland to come into force on the date that the Bill receives Royal Assent. Amendments 6A to 6B, 7A to 7S, 7U to 7W and 8A to 8C adjust the early closure date, previously 31 March 2016, to the date of Royal Assent. These changes are made in various places throughout clauses 79, 80 and 81, and to both the grid or radar condition and the investment freeze condition.
I was very clear in our last debate on this issue, as was the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the other place, Lord Bourne. The Government do not intend to backdate these provisions.
Before I speak to Lords amendment 7T and the Government’s motion to disagree, let me again say that the Government remain committed to delivering our manifesto pledge to end new subsidies for onshore wind. The final policy, which was agreed at our last debate in this House, strikes the right balance between protecting consumer bills and addressing the concerns of the industry.
The Government do not agree that it is appropriate to include the provision in Lords amendment 7T. The Government want this part of the Bill returned to the state in which it left this House last month. The amendment inserted into the Bill in the other place would allow projects that did not have formal planning consent as of 18 June last year into the RO beyond the early closure date. That would include projects that had an indication from a local planning authority that they would receive planning consent, subject to a section 106 or section 75 agreement being entered into. It would also include projects where the local planning committee was minded to approve the planning application before 18 June 2015, but planning permission was not issued until after that date. To be clear, those projects did not have planning permission as at 18 June last year, so they do not meet the grace period criteria proposed by the Government.
Mr Speaker, 18 June was set out as a clear, bright line, and we have continued to maintain that it is important as a clear cut-off and statement of intent to industry. Tampering with such an integral part of the early closure policy at such a late stage in its development simply will not do. Such a change would lead to an increase in deployment—an increase that runs counter to the intent of the early closure policy. The Government have a mandate to protect consumer bills from rising costs, and we must continue to maintain the clear, bright line that is so carefully set out in the Bill’s provisions.

Callum McCaig: What would this Lords amendment cost the average consumer, if the full 90 MW we are talking about were deployed?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the amendment is likely to reduce the predicted savings from early closure by something in the region of £10 million per annum, which is a significant figure, given that early closure of the RO is expected to save around £20 million a year in a central scenario, and as much as £270 million a year in the high scenario.

John Redwood: Does the Minister agree that this was one of the most popular policies in the pretty popular manifesto we put to the electorate? We therefore need to get on with implementing it, and the other place should recognise that this issue arose out of the election.

Andrea Leadsom: My right hon. Friend is exactly right: this is a key, popular manifesto commitment, and we are determined to implement it, as we promised the voters of this country we would last May.
Let me turn briefly to amendment 2A, which was agreed in the other place. The amendment simply seeks to ensure that the function of determining whether an oil field project is materially complete can be transferred to the Oil and Gas Authority. That function sits outside chapter 9 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 but elsewhere within part 8, so it does not fall within the definition of “relevant function” under clause 2(6) of the Bill. It therefore cannot be transferred from the Secretary of State to the OGA by regulations made under clause 2(2). The amendment simply removes the reference to “Chapter 9 of” from the reference to part 8 of the 2010 Act in clause 2(6), ensuring that this important function can be transferred to the OGA. The amendment is purely technical, and seeks to put beyond doubt that all key oil and gas taxation functions can be transferred to the OGA once it becomes a Government company, as we have always intended.

Alan Whitehead: The amendments we have received from the other  place make a number of changes to the Bill. In most instances, as the Minister mentioned, those relate to the commencement of the closure of the RO. That is essentially because of the Bill’s progress through Parliament and the potential charge of retrospectivity against the Bill. It is good that the issue has been rectified, and that the Government have confirmed that they do not intend to backdate the closure of the RO.
However, those changes point to the issue raised in amendment 7T, with which the Government have a motion to disagree. We need to be clear that the amendment is not saying that changing the closure date for the RO for onshore wind is wrong, although I continue to contend that it is. Contrary to the impression the Minister has given this afternoon, developers of projects did not realise that the closure date would be earlier than previously thought. Indeed, the so-called warnings before the general election, which she mentioned, were not about the early closure of the RO, but about future funding for onshore wind in general. Developers of projects knew that the RO would come to an end in March 2017, and many had spent several years—a long period—in the development process before the warnings were issued, and before the policy was put forward in the manifesto and, subsequently, the Bill. Having planned on the basis of the notion that the RO would come to  an end, they found out very late in the day that the goalposts had been arbitrarily moved, and that their investment was lost overnight as a result.
Nor is the amendment in any way contrary to manifesto commitments; it is not about the principle of the early closure of the RO, but about the grace periods that follow from that closure process. It is not saying that there should not be grace period exceptions for schemes that, for various reasons, might fall foul of the new, arbitrary cut-off date. By highlighting a small number of projects that have fallen foul of the cut-off date for very specific reasons, it is saying that grace-period schemes should be built on a reasonable level of equity and fairness, and should work within an understanding of proper reasons for exemption; they should not simply impose a few extended, but nevertheless still arbitrary, cut-off dates for projects.
Lords amendment 7T highlights a particularly egregious inequity in the grace-period scheme. This involves schemes that have, even according to the new guidelines laid down in the Bill process, done the right thing throughout by seeking and securing local support. As the Government said earlier in the passage of the Bill, it was to be the sine qua non of permission for the development of any onshore wind in the future that local communities should have the final say in decisions; schemes, it was said, should obtain support, perhaps through local planning approval, and should not, for example, seek to win an appeal on the basis of national determination, having been turned down at local level.
The schemes covered by the amendment fit exactly that description. They have determinedly gone through the local process and engaged with it, rather than standing back and waiting to progress through an appeal. They have won local community support, in each instance through the granting of a planning decision by the local authority. The only issue is that, having gone through that often lengthy process of local consultation, they find that the successful, locally supported outcome has, at the stroke of a pen, effectively been turned into refusal. That has happened because the final planning certificate has not arrived by the cut-off date because of issues relating not to the permission, but to details of section 106 agreements on community benefit or similar issues, or to section 75 agreements in Scotland—that is, issues that arise not as part of the agreement process, but because the agreement has been reached. As these schemes could not produce a final, formal planning certificate by the arbitrary date of 18 June, the scheme as a whole was lost.
Here is the timetable of one such scheme, the Twentyshilling Hill wind farm in Dumfriesshire. The planning application was initially made on 15 March 2013 —a long time ago. It was approved by a planning committee, subject to a section 75 agreement, on 16 December 2014. It was not the fault of the wind farm applicant that the council took a few months to settle the section 75 application. Even so, the application was agreed on 17 June—again, before the cut-off date. However, despite the agreement being public and on the council website, the final certificate did not arrive until 1 July, making it null and void in the Government’s eyes, as the Minister has stated.
In retrospect, it might have been wiser for those and other developers not to take too much time on, or give too much attention to, local agreement, but to instead  precipitate an appeal that they might have won. Indeed, when developers have done just that and the appeal decision has arrived after the cut-off date of 18 June 2015—we heard of such instances during the passage of the Bill—it has been accepted because of a provision relating to the grace period. The projects are deemed to have been okay all along and are allowed to proceed. That is frankly perverse, and it falls seriously short of the test of reasonableness and equity that ought to inform any grace period arrangement.
Lords amendment 7T relates to a small number of cases and seeks to restore a semblance of equity to the process. It is based on the principle that the Government themselves promoted as the basis for decisions on onshore wind applications. It is a principle for the future that, incidentally, Labour supports.
I shall explain the equity. If a local planning committee found in favour of a planning decision before 18 June, and the decision was arrived at via a process of consultation and community acceptance of the application, it should be covered by the grace period provisions. This small amendment would affect only about half a dozen schemes. In the overall scheme of things, it would make an insignificant inroad into levy control framework financial provisions, as far as the RO is concerned. It would, however, place a much-needed patch of equity on the grace period structure, and perhaps point the way to addressing seriously a future issue. That issue is this: are the Government intent on ensuring that onshore wind will be built in the future—it is, after all, the cheapest and most cost-effective renewable available—if local communities support the proposals, or do they intend to use national clout to override local wishes in pursuit of an overall closure of onshore wind, at least in England?
Accepting the amendment and finalising the Bill in this way would go a long way to restoring a principle that was supposedly central to the process for the future, and it would demonstrate to local communities that they really will be able to decide and not have their local wishes snuffed out by a fiat from the centre.

John Redwood: I hope that the other place will not delay this Bill further, because many people and parties in this House, and in the other place, wish it to go through to provide measures to help our oil and gas industry, which is struggling with the collapse in the world oil price and the consequent threat to jobs and prosperity that we would like to help alleviate.
I have two main reasons for strongly supporting the Government. First, they are absolutely right to say that our energy is too dear and that their measures are a contribution to tackling the problem of very expensive energy. A tragedy is unfolding in several of our industries, most recently in the steel industry, where the consequences of very high energy costs compared with those of our competitors around the world are manifest, especially the impact on output, profit, loss and loss of jobs. We desperately need to do more to tackle the problem of very expensive energy, so I admire the Government’s urgency in tackling one of its sources. The subsidy withdrawal is entirely appropriate.
One of the problems with wind energy—this makes it a very high-cost way of offering generating capacity—is that back-up capacity needs to be built to generate the power by some other means, because there will be times of the day, days of the week and weeks of the year when  there is no wind. At such times, we are entirely reliant on the back-up power, and that requires a full range of back-up. There will always be extra costs involved with such an unreliable renewable source of energy.
On cost grounds, it is vital that we make rapid progress. I think that good notice was given—the election was notice enough, I would have thought. It was a prominent and popular policy. None of us was shy about debating it and we got a lot of support from many people.
The second main reason why I think the Government are right to take this action is that wind is so intermittent and unreliable. Therefore, if there is too much wind, the problems of managing and balancing the system become that much greater. As the Member of Parliament who represents the control centre on Bearwood Road in Wokingham, I am only too well aware of how its task is made much more expensive and complicated the more interruptible and unreliable energy there is on the system. The Government’s measure will be a welcome check on that. It will help it to manage the system better and to provide more reliable power for industry.
If there is too much unreliable power on the system and that power goes down, it is industry and commerce that will take the hit. They will be asked to forgo the use of power when there is no wind, but when we are desperately trying to compete in a very competitive world, surely it is important not just to keep the lights on in people’s households, but to keep the factories turning over.
For those two powerful reasons—there are many others, but I will not detain the House with them— I strongly support what the Government are doing. I urge the other place to recognise how important it is for our national energy security and for the sake of the prices charged to our consumers, and, above all, to remember that it was an election pledge.

Callum McCaig: As is so often the case with learning about the workings of this place, sometimes I do not know whether something is a formal rule or a convention. I had assumed that “ping-pong” was a mere colloquialism, but I was surprised to learn from the Order Papers online that it is the formal name for this process. I was never very good at ping-pong when I was younger—I kept taking my eye off the ball, which could also be said of the Government, whose dogmatism in pushing this issue and continuing with ping-pong means that they are taking their eye off the bigger picture. I agree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) that the bigger picture for the Energy Bill, at every stage of the process, has been the establishment of the Oil and Gas Authority.
If we simply accept the Lords amendments, which I support, we could finish our deliberations on this Bill and be done with it. They are balanced and sensible and would deliver the pragmatic response that it is beholden on the Government to deliver.

Simon Hoare: I am sure that everybody has hugely pressing engagements, but given the importance of the OGA, and given the state of the oil and gas fields in the North sea, is the hon. Gentleman surprised at the absence of his party colleagues?

Callum McCaig: Sometimes it is better to know the answer to a question before asking it. A number of my colleagues are meeting constituents down from Scotland who suffer from motor neurone disease. Given the hugely debilitating impact that that illness can have on people, and given the impact that Westminster can have on welfare, it is important that a number of our folks are there.

James Cartlidge: That is a very fair response, but it is also notable how few Scottish National party MPs were in the Chamber on Second Reading of this Bill, which relates directly to one of the great issues facing the hon. Gentleman’s nation.

Callum McCaig: I started by saying that at one point in my youth I was guilty of taking my eyes off the ball. With these diversionary tactics, Conservative Members are well and truly taking their eyes off the ball. We could discuss who is here. It is disappointing that there are not many Members in the Chamber, and I am not sure proportionately how many Tories are present. I could do some back-of-a-fag-packet sums—that might appeal to them—but instead I shall persevere.
We are talking about 90 MW of onshore wind. The Minister said in Committee on 2 June that
“it is absolutely our intention to give local communities the final say on wind farm developments.”––[Official Report, Energy [Lords] Public Bill Committee, 2 June 2015; c. 76.]
Six of the seven schemes that have received planning consent are in Scotland. The committee dates were 24 November 2014 for West Benhar in North Lanarkshire; 11 December 2014 for Twentyshilling in Dumfries and Galloway; 3 June 2015 for the Chruach extension in Argyll and Bute; 15 September 2014 for the Barlockhart Moor extension; 27 January 2015 for Poniel in South Lanarkshire; 24 February 2015 for Crookedstane in South Lanarkshire; and 5 June 2015 for the Melton Common wind cluster in Hull. Those were all before the Government’s cut-off date of 18 June 2015.
As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) suggested, if we are to put local consent at the heart of this issue, we must respect the outcome and will of local councils that decided to proceed with these schemes, but which through no fault of their own—or indeed of the developers—were not granted planning consent and a decision notice until after this decision. For the Twentyshilling Hill wind farm, evidence to the Committee from the provost and chair of the Royal Burgh of Sanquhar and District Community Council, and the chair of Kirkconnel and Kelloholm Community Council stated:
“Our two Communities number nearly 5000 inhabitants, and, since the closure of the coal mines nearly 50 years ago, have stumbled from crisis to crisis. Despite the problems affecting our area, we are not dependent communities, and both Kirkconnel and Sanquhar can boast good public initiatives and an earnest desire to improve our lot through self-help. Windfarm monies will, at least allow local people the ability to take decisions which will improve the area in which we live.”
Twentyshilling Hill wind farm has the potential to offer life-changing improvement to the lives and living conditions of the populations of Upper Nithsdale. That is local empowerment. We are talking about local consent and support, and Twentyshilling Hill wind farm has unmistakeably got the support of the communities in which it will be set. For the sake of a few points of  dogmatic principle from the Government, we are seeing that taken away through no fault of the community or the developer, but purely to persevere unnecessarily. I urge the Government to put their eyes back on ball and allow the Energy Bill to proceed. If we go back and forth with ping-pong we risk delaying that further.

James Cartlidge: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Let me make a point that I also raised  in Committee. I accept that there may not be time for this with some of these schemes, but on a point of principle, if the Scottish Government and the SNP wish to continue these schemes in Scotland, why will they not pay for them themselves?

Callum McCaig: Because there is no mechanism. We discussed that in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman voted against the mechanism that would have allowed that to happen. I do not see how that question focuses on the issue. If we want Scotland to receive support for such projects, that could have been provided.

James Cartlidge: On a point of correction, I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman wanted Scotland to have the power, but that the Scottish Government were not going to pay for it. That is what we discussed in Committee—they were not prepared to pay for it.

Callum McCaig: There were two different aspects, and we had a number of debates. The hon. Gentleman asked how we would do something, but we cannot do it—pure and simple. Let me return to the nub of the matter. People would like pragmatic government, but we are seeing dogmatic government that dismisses the views of communities.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Callum McCaig: I am coming to a close. Such dogmatic government is making communities withdraw their support, and I urge the Government to show pragmatism today.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is a pleasure to listen to a message from the other place and to disagree with it wholeheartedly. A few hours ago the German Government decided that they want to withdraw subsidy from onshore wind schemes, for exactly the same reasons that we in this country are doing so. In previous debates and in Committee, I described my campaign to get this clear manifesto pledge from my party. I will not go through that again—I had only half an hour last time to describe the process and some of the things that I was after, and we are time-limited today—but it all stemmed from the Kelmarsh decision in my constituency.
Members in this place understand how important it is to represent their constituents, but I wish to tell some of those in the other place that it was not only one small village in my constituency that was affected by an onshore wind decision—Hanging Houghton, Brixworth, Draughton, Maidwell, Hazelbeach, Kelmarsh, Yelvertoft, Winwick, Crick, Lilbourne, Badby, Kislingbury, Guilsborough, Watford, West Haddon, East Haddon, Ravensthorpe, Great Oxendon and many more villages in my constituency were all affected by proposals for unwanted onshore wind farms. That is why at the end of  the previous Parliament, a letter to the Prime Minister was signed by 101 Members of Parliament in order to get this change. There was a long battle across the Floor of the House about whether we should be subsidising onshore wind, and a clear manifesto pledge by the Conservative party to stop funding it.
The hon. Members for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) and for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) have highlighted small factors within the grace period, but this is a clear manifesto pledge and principle that people in my constituency wanted and expected me to fight for. I will not listen to those in the other House who are determined to bring party politics into this.
There are no Lib Dems in the Chamber today—there are too many anyway, but none of them is here today. Those Lib Dems who fought to reform and get an elected Chamber up the other end of the corridor are now using that Chamber to abuse the democratic process of this country. They know full well what they are doing. When Lord Wallace of Tankerness decided that he wanted to interpret the Conservative party manifesto, it was interesting that many Liberal Democrats who supported him had been defeated by people who supported that manifesto. They lost their seats partly because in their communities they could not defend the onshore wind turbines that the Conservative party had made a clear commitment to get rid of.

Callum McCaig: We are talking about a very small number of wind farms. I do not believe that those Liberal Democrats who would have been impacted by the wind farms that we are dealing with today would have lost to the Conservative party.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I know the hon. Gentleman said that he had a bit of trouble with conventions, and so, obviously, do some Members of the House of Lords. I am trying to remind them of a long-standing tradition and convention in this place, which is that when a party has a manifesto commitment to enact legislation, that legislation should not be overturned by those who are unelected down the other end of the corridor. If we consider who tabled the amendments and voted for this message to be sent to the Commons, we see a whole list of former MPs who lost their seats because of the manifesto that they are now trying to overturn from an unelected place.
I was involved with this manifesto pledge through  to the point of delivery, and I sat on the Energy Bill Committee. I am pretty sure that I know what our manifesto pledge was, as did those who voted for it in my constituency—it was on my leaflets and plain for all to see. I wish to send a message to those down the other end of the corridor that they are dabbling with democracy. They are not just fighting for the principle of a grace period for six wind farms; they are determinedly fighting against a clear manifesto pledge by a governing party.

Alan Whitehead: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman had in his election leaflet details of the grace periods that would have been put in place as a consequence of the manifesto commitment. If those details were not in his leaflet, does he agree that the question of grace periods is not about the manifesto commitment, but  about how that commitment might be made more palatable, as far as the transition is concerned? That is what we are debating today.

Chris Heaton-Harris: That is the sort of thing that I probably would have had etched into a stone for people to laugh at. The hon. Gentleman knows the answer. Of course, I did not have anything about grace periods in my local campaign leaflet that I sent to my constituents, because I thought that people would understand exactly what we meant when we said that there was no subsidy for onshore wind. I did not think that it was necessary to dance on the head of a pin for the sake of a simple party political point.
I end where I began. My constituents are desperate for the measure, and they are desperate for the measures to help the oil and gas industry. They are surprised that Liberal Democrats down the other end of the corridor are willing to play politics with the elected Chamber on a point in a manifesto on which they were heartily defeated. My constituents are annoyed by the fact that the matter has not become law already.

James Cartlidge: It was a great pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee. I hope that the House will not mind if I return briefly to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig), because it is important to set the record straight. Before I give my reasons for supporting the Government, let me say that my recollection—I am happy for this to be clarified—is that in the Bill Committee, SNP Members tabled amendments to give them the power to keep the projects open but, when asked, they did not confirm that they would put up the money to support those projects. The justification that they gave related to the nuclear industry. As I recall, they said that it was quite fair for them not to have to pay for the projects because they have to pay for the nuclear industry, which they do not agree with. Thereafter, I asked them whether they would want to be cut off from the electricity supply that comes from the nuclear sector in this country, and the answer was no. As always, they want to have their cake and eat it—rather like the Mayor of London, although they do not make their arguments with as much grace as he does. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South has tried his best today, and I see that he has got some extra support to back him up.
My two reasons for supporting the Government are clear and along the lines of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). The first relates to the simple principle of democracy and the position of my constituents, whom I have been sent here to represent. Overwhelmingly, my constituents support our policy on onshore wind, and they want it to be enacted in good time. Since I attended the Bill Committee, I have been out and about in the constituency, and the matter continues to come up. I recently addressed a meeting of the Stour and Orwell Society, a fine and upstanding group of ladies and gentlemen who are committed to preserving and protecting the natural beauty and heritage of the countryside in South Suffolk, particularly in the peninsula where the River Stour meets the Orwell. For anybody who wishes to come and  visit, it is a fine place and it is not particularly blighted by large constructions that will be affected by these changes. Overwhelmingly, the position of the constituency is that it supports the changes.
My second point relates to the Oil and Gas Authority, and it has been alluded to by my right hon. Friend and others. I simply want to say that we should not delay a Bill—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) wish to intervene?

Alan Whitehead: I simply want to make the point that we could finish proceedings today if the Government agreed to the amendment, and the Oil and Gas Authority could go forward with all speed, as everybody wants it to.

James Cartlidge: Absolutely. If the hon. Gentleman is willing personally to provide £10 million so that the taxpayer and electricity customers do not have to be so encumbered, I am sure that we can find a way.
We have a clear position. The Bill has not changed in respect of the fundamental decision to establish the Oil and Gas Authority. At one point on the day of Second Reading, the price of a barrel of oil was $27.70. It is now around the $40 to $44 mark, so there has been some stabilisation, but that word has to be used carefully in view of what is happening around the world. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard had an excellent piece this week on continuing stability in Kuwait, and we see today in the FT that Saudi Arabia is starting to borrow from the markets. The price may go up, or it may go down again. The key point is that the outlook is uncertain. Enacting the Bill, with this new and respected regulator, will add stability and credibility to the sector at an important time. It is not a magic wand, and it will not immediately heal the problems that undoubtedly exist in this industry, which is vital for the United Kingdom, but it is a key part of our energy policy and proposition. That is why the Bill should become law as soon as possible.
This is basically about our national interest, which has, for many decades, been tied to North sea oil and to the energy sector. That is true not only of Scotland; in the East Anglian economy, a significant amount of output and a significant number of jobs come from the oil sector. I encourage all hon. Members to support the Government on this matter. Our reasons are clear. This is about supporting the energy sector and respecting the democratic will of the people of the United Kingdom.

James Heappey: I think we all hoped that the Energy Bill would by now have completed its progress through Parliament. It is a shame that it has not, especially because the closure of the renewables obligation for onshore wind was a clear manifesto commitment by the Government before the last election. That was a popular pledge, especially in my constituency, where opposition to wind farms in the Mendips and at Pilrow is widespread. It is difficult to explain to my constituents that that manifesto commitment, which the Government have a clear mandate to deliver, has not been enacted because of the intervention of the unelected Members of the other place.
That is especially true, as has been noted by a number of my hon. Friends, because the Opposition has been abetted in the House of Lords by a party that was roundly rejected in Somerset, in the south-west and  across the country. Not one of its elected Members has come to this Chamber today to justify the actions of their unelected colleagues in the other place. The illiberal undemocrats have a great deal to answer for. I want to congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister of State on their forbearance in seeing the Bill through Parliament. I understand that the other day, the Secretary of State spent some time at the Bar of the other House eyeballing those who were delaying the legislation. Sadly, they had their way, and we are here yet again to debate it.
It is important that we do not allow the closure of the renewables obligation for onshore wind to be cast as anti-green. The deployment of onshore wind has been widespread, despite strong opposition in this place—with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) in the vanguard—and in communities across the country. As a result of £800 million of subsidy, there are 490 operational wind farms and just under 5,000 operational turbines, so the measure is not anti-wind or anti-green.
The Government need to deliver their manifesto commitment to ensure that bill payers are not expected to foot the bill for the excessive deployment of this type of generation. Let us be clear. The Government are well on track to achieve 30% of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2020, and we should congratulate them on that. They are serious about decarbonisation and serious about security of supply, but they are also serious about keeping bills down. A line must be drawn somewhere, and the Government’s decision on the matter is, in my view, entirely reasonable.
Let us reject Lords amendment 7T and stop the onshore wind industry impeding the progress of a Bill that, principally, establishes the OGA, with all its important functions in reinvigorating the UK’s oil and gas industry, safeguarding hundreds of thousands of jobs, contributing billions to our economy and protecting an essential component of not only our energy security but, I argue, our national security. It is high time that we moved on with the Bill, and that the Lords accepted the will of this elected Chamber. It is time that we focused our energies not on onshore wind, but in using the Government’s subsidy structure as a lever to encourage the technologies, such as offshore wind and new nuclear, that we envisage will be part of our energy mix for the next 20 or 30 years.

Graham Stuart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

James Heappey: I am just wrapping up, but I am pleased to give way.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is making a powerful and well-informed speech. Does he agree that although we are ending the subsidy for onshore wind, there will still be a role for it? We must continue to make sure that, while it is not subsidised, onshore wind does not lose out in comparison with the strike prices granted to other technologies.

James Heappey: I accept my hon. Friend’s point to a degree. This is not the end of onshore wind in that onshore wind is not being banned, but is simply being told that it is time to find its own feet and to go it alone, where it can be sited in a permissive planning environment. I regularly drive up the M5 past the onshore wind turbines at Avonmouth, and one might argue that they  are entirely reasonable in that industrial setting. Provided turbines can be sited in a permissive place and they do not require any further Government subsidy, they may of course continue. However, it is important that the subsidy ends and that it does so with the passage of the Bill.
It is also important to note that the Energy and Climate Change Committee has recently begun pre-legislative scrutiny of the next energy Bill. There is a great deal in it that is quite exciting, in my view, so let us get this one done and get on with that one.

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, in which there have been interesting speeches by Members on both sides of the House. On ending the subsidy for onshore wind, the whole aim of subsidy regimes for renewable technologies is to encourage costs to fall and to drive them down over time to the point at which they no longer need a subsidy. The Government put that in their manifesto.
I think a lot of this is down to Labour Members, because they would not listen to communities, such as my own, which felt that wind farms were being imposed on them that blighted their view of the landscape. The sense of a loss of control, even more than the imposition of the turbines themselves, created a great deal of resentment. We have ended up in a position in which the party that won a majority at the general election stood on a manifesto promise to end this subsidy.
The Government have made provision to ensure that onshore wind, where it goes ahead, has the support of the local community. I have said previously in the House, so I will not go on about it at too much length, that that issue should have been sorted out. If it had been sorted out sooner, we might not have had the backlash that has found its form—not least through the agency of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)—in saying, “We feel that this subsidy regime is imposing these turbines on us.” The permissions, not the subsidy per se, was the central issue, but we are where we are.
Further to my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), I want to make this point. Given that we now have an energy market in which the price producers charge for energy is far less than that at which anyone can afford to commission new production, we have a rather artificial market. I hope and expect we will make sure—I know Ministers are looking at this—that future regimes, for contracts for difference or whatever else, do not artificially block onshore wind from getting access to the market because of how pricing within that market operates. It is perfectly possible to ensure that there is no subsidy for onshore wind while ensuring that onshore wind alone is not deprived of access to the mechanisms that drive new commissioning for every other technology. I hope that Members on both sides of the House can agree to that. As long as communities have the final say on whether new wind farm capacity is brought into their area, and as long as onshore wind is treated no differently from other technologies, including fossil fuels such as gas, that is the situation we need to bring about.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite difficult to attribute cost to stand-by power for wind? Wind uniquely needs such a power in a way that other forms of energy do not.

Graham Stuart: I agree that there are such issues. In his speech, my right hon. Friend did not reflect on the success of the Government. I know he is sceptical about both climate change and the Government’s approach to this over the years, but what is undeniable is the way in which the cost curve has accelerated downwards. We were previously in a situation in which clean energy was ridiculously more expensive than fossil fuels, which poison the air and also have climate risks attached to them. We have therefore seen a real driving down of that cost. Onshore wind is now in a position where it should be able to compete on a level playing field with new gas-fired power stations; we will not of course see any more coal-fired ones.
Whereas the price of offshore wind was £150 per MWh just a few years ago, we will now, as was announced in the autumn statement, see a ceiling of £104 or £105 per MWh. By the time we are into commissioning for the mid-2020s, we will be looking at a price of below £85 per MWh, which, as my right hon. Friend and other Members will know, is less than that guaranteed for Hinkley.
We are therefore moving to a world of renewables. As part of the reset, we will have an improved approach to encouraging storage and demand management. The roll-out of smart meters will be part of such demand management—I know that efforts are being made with National Grid to find the cheapest way to encourage major industries not to use energy at times when the grid is being pushed—as will interconnectors. We are therefore building the more intelligent system that will take cost out of the intermittent renewables sector at the same time as those renewables are cheaper in relation to their production costs, become more efficient and help us to meet our climate change objectives.
I am pleased to say that it is time we put this law in place and made sure that the Oil and Gas Authority can do its work. If there is an uptick in the oil price, as doubtless there will be, we will have an oil business in this country that is fit for purpose and efficient, and which can continue to deliver jobs in Scotland and elsewhere across the United Kingdom.

Andrea Leadsom: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate. The Energy Bill will enact our manifesto commitments in two key ways. It will create the Oil and Gas Authority, which provides part of our continued support for North sea oil and gas. It will also implement the recommendations of the review by Sir Ian Wood, and we are doing everything we can to ensure the long-term survival and thriving state of this critical UK industry.
The North sea oil and gas industry has been the UK’s largest industrial investor for many decades and has paid billions of pounds in corporation tax on production. However, as the basin matures, oil and gas become more difficult to access. We cannot and must not accept any delay in completing the Bill, because we need to give the Oil and Gas Authority the powers it needs to maximise the economic recovery of the UK’s remaining oil and gas reserves. Industry and Government share the same ambitions and are working very closely together to manage the remaining resources effectively and efficiently.
I find it very disappointing that Opposition Members, who should know better, have suggested that by adding a mere £10 million extra per year to consumer bills, we can somehow achieve our aim of setting up the Oil and Gas Authority early. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should be supporting the Bill’s speedy conclusion to Royal Assent for the sake of the oil and gas industry they all profess to support so enormously.
On the delivery of the Government’s manifesto commitments on onshore wind, we promised to end new subsidies for onshore wind and to ensure that local people have the final say on where onshore wind is built. Opposition Members suggest that just because there is local agreement, it is fine to add to the bills of all consumers across Great Britain, but that is simply not the case. It is our duty as consumer champions—at least on the Government Benches—to keep down the cost to consumers, and that is what we will do.
Onshore wind has deployed successfully to date and is projected to meet our planned range of 11 to 13 GW by 2020, but we do not want to continue to provide subsidies where they are no longer necessary and where they are simply adding to the costs for energy consumers. We must seek the right balance between each of our three competing priorities: to keep the lights on; to keep bills down; and to decarbonise at the lowest possible price. Above all else, we want Members right across the Chamber to support these amendments so that we can get the OGA—
One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Lords message, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House agrees with Lords amendment 7A.
Question agreed to.
Lords amendment 7A accordingly agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7T.—(Andrea Leadsom.)

Lords amendment 7T disagreed to.
Remaining Lords amendments agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived in respect of Lords amendment 2A.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 7T;
That James Cartlidge, Andrea Leadsom, Holly Lynch, Callum McCaig, Paul Maynard, Julian Smith and Dr Alan Whitehead be members of the Committee;
That Andrea Leadsom be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Julian Smith.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

BACKBENCH BUSINESS - DAESH: GENOCIDE OF MINORITIESBACKBENCH BUSINESS

Natascha Engel: We now come to the Back-Bench debate on the recognition of genocide by Daesh against Yazidis, Christians and other ethnic and religious minorities. Before I ask Fiona Bruce to move the motion, I point out that we will be very strict about opening speeches being no longer than 15 minutes, including interventions, and that there will be an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. I remind hon. Members that when interventions are taken and a minute or two is added to their speech limit, those minutes are taken out of speeches of Members lower down the speakers list. If people can be aware of that, I will be very grateful.

Fiona Bruce: I beg to move,
That this House believes that Christians, Yazidis, and other ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria are suffering genocide at the hands of Daesh; and calls on the Government to make an immediate referral to the UN Security Council with a view to conferring jurisdiction upon the International Criminal Court so that perpetrators can be brought to justice.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate.
Genocide is a word of such gravity that it should never be used readily. It is rightly known as the “crime above all crimes”. For that reason, it is incumbent on us to prevent the term from being devalued or overused. However, such caution must not stop us naming a genocide when one is taking place. The supporters of the motion are here to insist that there is overwhelming evidence that the atrocities of Daesh in Syria and Iraq should be recognised for the genocide they are and considered as such by the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court. It will support similar resolutions of other leading international and legislative bodies.
There are only two possibilities for Members here. If the House is not satisfied that genocidal atrocities are being perpetrated, we must not pass the motion, on which I am minded to test the will of the House, but if colleagues believe that the depravities of Daesh are being undertaken with genocidal intent, we have already waited far too long to recognise it.
Yesterday evening, here in the UK Parliament, we heard the truly harrowing personal testimony of a brave 16-year-old Yazidi girl called Ekhlas. She was seized by Daesh from her home, along with others from her community in Sinjar in northern Iraq. At the age of 15, she saw her father and brother killed in front of her. She told of how every girl in her community over eight, including herself, was imprisoned and raped. She spoke of witnessing her friends being raped and hearing their screams, and of seeing a girl aged nine being raped by so many men that she died. Many young girls had their fragile bodies rendered incapable of pregnancy, and others who were far too young to be so were made pregnant. Horrifically, she spoke of seeing a two-year-old boy being killed and of his body parts being ground down and fed to his own mother. She told of children being brainwashed and forced to kill their own parents.  Fortunately, she managed to escape the prison during a bombardment of the area around it. Others are not so fortunate.
We heard from another women, Yvette, who had come directly from Syria for last night’s meeting. She spoke of Christians being killed and tortured, and of children being beheaded in front of their parents. She showed us recent film footage of herself talking with mothers—more than one—who had seen their own children crucified. Another woman had seen 250 children put through a dough kneader and burnt in an oven. The oldest was four years old. She told us of a mother with a two-month-old baby. When Daesh knocked at the front door of her house and ordered the entire family out, she pleaded with them to let her collect her child from another room. They told her, “No. Go. It is ours now.”

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward this very important debate. She is making a powerful speech. Every year, Members of this House sign the holocaust book of commitment, making the pledge that that terrible genocide will never be forgotten. I have personally signed a pledge that I will never walk on by. Does she agree that today we have the opportunity to make sure that none of us walks on by as we see this terrible genocide unfold?

Fiona Bruce: I absolutely do. After the horrors of the holocaust, the words, “Never again” resounded through civilisation. We must not let them resound again.
Speaking to MPs at yesterday’s meeting, the young girl Ekhlas implored us:
“Listen to me, help the girls, help those in captivity; I am pleading with you, let us come together and call this what it is: a genocide. This is about human dignity. You have a responsibility. ISIS are committing a genocide, because they are trying to wipe us out.”
Genocide is an internationally recognised term, defined in the 1948 convention on genocide, to which we are a signatory as a country, as
“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group…Killing…Causing serious bodily or mental harm… Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions…calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…Imposing measures intended to prevent births…Forcibly transferring children”.
I put it to the House that not just one but every single one of those criteria was satisfied by the two testimonies yesterday.

Rehman Chishti: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Fiona Bruce: I will, but after that I will not take any further interventions because of the limitation placed on my speaking time.

Rehman Chishti: I applaud my hon. Friend for bringing this motion to the Floor of the House. She talks about using the term genocide; our international partners, such as the United States, its Secretary of State and House of Representatives, and the European Parliament have already said that the acts committed by Daesh amount to genocide. We should interpret international law in line with our key partners, who we are working with to defeat Daesh.

Fiona Bruce: I absolutely agree. We do not want to be behind but in the lead. Our country has a proud history of leading on human rights and ensuring that aggressors are brought to justice. We must do so in this case, too.
Yazidis and Christians have been targeted explicitly because of their religion and ethnicity. It is not just them, but Alawites, Shi’as, Shabaks and Mandaeans. The suffering of the two women I mentioned has been replicated countless times by other families, as we know from the statistics that we have all heard in this House. I have seen many reports documenting evidence of genocidal atrocities, as I am sure other Members have, from the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN assistance mission for Iraq and others—thousands of pages recording executions, mass graves, assassinations of church leaders, crucifixions, systematic rapes, torture of men, women and children, beheadings, and many other acts of violence so unspeakable that their evil seems almost fictional. But it is not.
Daesh is targeting specific groups precisely because of those groups’ characteristics, and it has declared that, and that its acts have genocidal intent. For example, issue 4 of its online magazine “Dabiq” tells its followers that they will be held accountable if the Yazidi people continue to exist. As Lord Alton of Liverpool—I pay tribute to him for his work on this issue—has said, if we do not recognise this as genocide
“we might as well rip up the genocide convention as a worthless piece of paper.”
As a consequence of the evidence meticulously collected by non-governmental organisations, activists and the UN, resolutions condemning the actions of Daesh’s genocide have been passed around the world—as has been mentioned—by the Council of Europe in January 2016, the European Parliament in February and the US House of Representatives in March. Following that, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, made an announcement confirming the position of the US Government, stating that,
“Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control including Yazidis, Christians and Shia Muslims. Daesh is genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology and by actions”.
If that is the position of the US Government, why is it not the position of our own?
In answer to that question, which has been raised many times, UK Government Ministers have repeatedly said that,
“it is a long-standing Government policy that any judgements on whether genocide has occurred should be a matter for the international judicial system rather than legislatures, governments or other non-judicial bodies.”
In other words, whether this is genocide is a matter for the courts to decide; in this case, more specifically, it is a matter for the International Criminal Court. But—this is the crucial point of the motion—under the procedures relating to the ICC, it cannot make that judgment until it is requested to do so, and the only way that can now happen is if such a referral is made by the UN Security Council, of which the UK Government are a permanent member. That is why supporting the motion is so important. There is a circular argument here—a stalemate—which this Parliament needs to break. The motion before the House calls on us, as Members of the UK Parliament, to make a declaration of genocide, and then asks that the UK Government refer that to the UN Security  Council so that the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court can take action.
That prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, has already said, as long as a year ago, that she stands ready to take action, given a referral, saying:
“I remain profoundly concerned by this situation and I want to emphasise our collective duty as a global community to respond to the plight of victims whose rights and dignity have been violated. ISIS continues to spread terror on a massive scale in the territories it occupies. The international community pledged that appalling crimes that deeply shock the conscience of humanity must not go unpunished. As Prosecutor of the ICC, I stand ready to play my part, in an independent and impartial manner.”
When so much suffering continues daily, can we wait any longer before doing all that we can to act against it?
I am aware that the UK Government are already involved in assertively tackling the aggression of Daesh and its poisonous ideology in many ways, not least through air strikes, cutting off finance and providing counter-terrorism expertise, as well as through humanitarian aid and information gathering. I commend the Government for that, but there can surely be no good reason for delaying the additional step of referring this to the UN Security Council with a view to conferring jurisdiction on the ICC to start its own unique procedures to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Some may ask what difference that would really make. It will make a real difference. Recognition of genocide brings with it obligations on the part of the international community to prevent, punish and protect. It initiates the process leading to the prosecution of perpetrators and makes it more likely that guilty individuals will be punished. It is often followed by a stronger international response both against the atrocities and in the provision of greater help for survivors with their urgent needs—something that is much needed in this case. It can facilitate reparations for survivors.
Recognising the actions of Daesh as genocide should therefore help inject further momentum into the international efforts to stop the killings. It would, I hope, lead to more active safeguarding of those members of religious minorities on the ground whose lives and very communities currently hang in the balance. It may also make potential new recruits—including those from the UK—think twice about joining Daesh, given the ramifications of being caught.
Recognition of genocide is not the only or the final action of the international community, but it is a crucial step, and one that we should make today. I recognise that conferring jurisdiction on the ICC requires the support of other members of the Security Council, but that should not stop our country from initiating the process. I add that there is precedent for the Security Council to establish a fact-finding committee of experts, so that all current evidence can be assessed and new evidence can be collected. If the motion is passed, I appeal to the Government to consider that recommendation at the Security Council.
I repeat: some may ask, “What difference will this really make?” I leave the final word to the young girl Ekhlas. To her, it would make all the difference in the world. When I asked her yesterday what her hopes were for the future, she replied,
“to see justice done for my people.”
I ask Members to support the motion. In the final analysis, it is about doing justice and seeing it done.

Stephen Twigg: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Between 2005 and 2010, I had the privilege of working for the fantastic Aegis Trust, which works both to commemorate and to prevent genocide.
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is a distinguished Member of the House and a member of the International Development Committee, as well as a campaigner on human rights, particularly those of religious and other minorities. I agreed with everything that she said, which I believe has strong cross-party support. Like her, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate to happen. I hope that the hon. Lady will press the motion to a Division because we have an opportunity to send a really strong message from all parties that we believe that what is happening is a genocide and that the international system has a duty and responsibility to act.
In both Iraq and Syria, ethnic and other minorities have been in severe danger since the emergence of Daesh, and we have seen this once diverse region witnessing mass killings, rapes, forced conversions, and the destruction of shrines, temples and churches in the region. The hon. Member for Congleton spoke about the meeting she convened and chaired last night. I, too, listened to the powerful speech from Ekhlas, a young woman who has been through hell—something that no young person should ever have to go through. Sadly, this was not the first time that many of us have heard such testimony. Earlier this year, a meeting was convened by the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who chairs of the all-party group on the prevention of genocide, and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) at which we heard from another teenage Yazidi woman, Nadia Murad, who had also been captured and imprisoned by Daesh. Nadia told us that she had been beaten, tortured and raped before, thankfully, she managed to escape. Her story shocked us in the same way that Ekhlas’s story shocked us last night. Since her escape, Nadia has spoken here in Parliament, at the UN and with various Governments, including our own, simply to raise awareness of the plight of the Yazidis in general, and Yazidi women in particular.

Rob Flello: I join others in highlighting the importance of this debate. Surely to goodness, though, making these poor people go through it all again when they have to provide their testimony to organisations seems harsh when those organisations should not need such persuasion. They should be capable of realising what is happening without needing to put people through the pain of having to repeat themselves over and over again.

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the evidence is there. I suppose that human testimony provides an important additional dimension, but he is right that the evidence is extremely well documented. It is estimated that more than 3,000 Yazidi women are being held against their will by Daesh.
A glance at the history of this region should surely lead us to learn some lessons today. A century ago, the Armenians and Assyrians suffered a genocide. I absolutely  agree with the hon. Member for Congleton that the policy of Daesh towards the Yazidi, Christians and other minorities amounts to genocide.

David Davis: I fully intend to support and vote for this important motion. When I was in Syria two weeks ago, I interviewed about 23 or 24 people from various groups who had suffered, including Christians and Alawites. My key point in the debate is that not just Daesh was responsible, but Daesh and its allies. We should remember that when we come to bring these cases before the international court.

Stephen Twigg: The right hon. Gentleman’s makes an extremely important point, which I hope will be elaborated during today’s debate.

Jo Cox: I shall also proudly support the motion, and I hope that the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who made a powerful speech, will press it to a Division. We should follow the US Secretary of State and call this behaviour what it really is. The suffering of the Yazidis at the hands of Daesh is compounded by their suffering at the hands  of the Assad regime. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we focus only on Daesh, we do a great disservice to those who are fleeing the horror of the Assad regime, whose suffering should count just as much and should demand as much attention from this Government?

Stephen Twigg: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the Assad regime has unleashed appalling terror on its people. It is absolutely right to focus on it, as a number of us have made clear in previous debates. Before the debate on military intervention in Syria, I visited refugees in Jordan and heard at first hand the horror that they had experienced, usually at the hands of the Syrian regime, but sometimes at the hands of Daesh and their allies. Today’s motion is a focused one that we can all unite in supporting, but it does not detract in any way from the importance of continuing to highlight the abuses of the Assad regime.
On the question of whether this is a genocide, let us be clear that Daesh gives the Yazidis a choice—of forced conversion, death or exile. I think that that amounts to the destruction of the foundations of the life of a group of people. United Nations international criminal tribunals have recognised sexual violence and sexual slavery, both of which we know are prevalent in Daesh’s actions towards the Yazidis, as part of a genocidal process.
I want to raise a specific point about the importance of documentation. An estimated 25 mass graves containing the mortal remains of Yazidis murdered by Daesh in August 2014 have now been discovered in Sinjar in northern Iraq. These graves are not adequately protected and are being disturbed by a variety of people, including—perfectly understandably—the relatives of the victims, as well as local people and sometimes journalists. However, there is a risk that the evidence, and therefore our ability to identify the victims of Daesh, will be compromised. Yazidi campaign groups have called for the protection of the graves and an analysis of the mortal remains that they contain. An international response on this matter is needed, but has not yet materialised.
The US Holocaust Museum has recommended a genocide designation partly to raise public awareness because, as its says,
“historical memory is a tool of prevention”.
The International Commission on Missing Persons is the leading organisation dedicated to addressing the issue of persons missing in the aftermath of armed conflict. In the aftermath of the war in Iraq, its Government set up a human rights ministry with a remit to consider the policy towards mass graves. Unfortunately, that ministry has been dissolved. It is clear to me that it is the ICMP that should respond to the challenge in Sinjar of identifying the victims and examining the mass graves forensically in order to preserve evidence, and I would be grateful if the Minister would address that issue. The UK has a good track record of working with the ICMP, for example in Bosnia. Will the Government undertake to work with the ICMP and the Iraqi Government to help to protect these mass graves? It is crucial that these crimes are properly documented, especially if the motion succeeds and a referral for genocide is made to the United Nations. It is important to the families of the victims that those victims are identified as accurately  as possible.

Ann Clwyd: For years, I collected evidence of Iraqi war crimes for an organisation called INDICT. I was therefore involved with some of the mass graves in Iraq, many thousands of which still remain unexcavated because of security threats. I fully support my hon. Friend’s points. It is important to protect the mass graves because of the evidence contained therein.

Stephen Twigg: I thank my right hon. Friend and pay tribute to her decades of work on this crucial issue.
As part of our duty to recognise the genocide, we should prioritise protecting the evidence that will help us to bring those who are guilty of genocide to justice and to dignify the victims of these awful crimes. I support the motion and believe that the hon. Member for Congleton made a powerful case for why the House should urge the Government to refer the matter to the UN. I understand the Government’s position—I raised the matter with the Prime Minister a few weeks ago—but the way in which we recognise genocide is different from that of the Americans. The hon. Lady has come up with an intelligent and, if I may say so, ingenious way of ensuring that we get a positive response from the Government. Today’s debate also provides an opportunity for the House to send out a very powerful message on a cross-party basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) reminded us that every year in January we commemorate the Nazi holocaust. We have Holocaust Memorial Day because the message after the holocaust, at the end of the second world war, was “never again”. Tragically, since the end of the second world war and since the holocaust, we have had Cambodia, we have had Rwanda, and now we have what is happening as a result of Daesh’s actions against the Yazidis and others. We have an opportunity to heed that warning from the holocaust—“never again”—and to send the message to our own Government, and also  to Daesh and the wider international community, that we recognise this as genocide and want action to be taken against the perpetrators of that genocide.

Derek Thomas: I support the motion and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for securing this welcome debate.
It is profoundly disturbing that people in Iraq and Syria are being attacked for belonging to different religious and ethnic groups. Daesh has assassinated church leaders, committed torture, kidnapping, mass murders, sexual abuse and systematic rape, and brought about the  sexual enslavement of women and girls. Daesh’s official propaganda videos and newspapers document its specific intent to destroy Christian and Yazidi groups in Syria and Iraq. Yesterday evening I attended a meeting at which I heard about the many cases that have been mentioned today by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), as well as about the use of former public buildings to imprison girls as young as nine, as well as women, for the purpose of systematic rape and to satisfy sexual lust.

Helen Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the women and girls who are abducted and then escape face stigma and discrimination when they return? Does he agree that those women and girls are victims, and that they should be given all the help and support that they need and deserve so that they can move on in life? We should also bring the perpetrators to justice.

Derek Thomas: I was left with that very thought after yesterday evening’s meeting—how can these girls and young women rebuild their lives and somehow find a place in society in which they can lead full and enriched lives? Considerable work is needed to support them.
The United Kingdom has a rich tradition of helping and advocating on behalf of the world’s most vulnerable people. Whenever a crisis or disaster occurs, the UK Government and the British people are quick to respond and lead the charge, providing humanitarian aid and financial assistance. Why is it, then, that despite being one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and having the responsibility of our unique role in the international community, we have been slow, and appear reluctant, to trigger the legal mechanisms in the international judicial system? The legal designation of genocide on the part of Daesh relies first on action by the UN Security Council and therefore requires the UK Government to show some leadership.
Since being elected, I have heard on several occasions that the Government consider the UK to be a world leader on human rights. That status risks being undermined by the apparent lack of willingness to recognise what  is going on in Iraq and Syria as genocide, and to create an environment in which these acts can be prevented and the perpetrators punished. The United States  Secretary of State John Kerry, the United States House of Representatives, the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have   already described ISIS atrocities as “genocide”. It is time that the UK joined those countries in politically recognising the atrocities as such.

Stephen Gethins: The hon. Gentleman is making good points. Does he agree that the principle of universal jurisdiction should apply to crimes against humanity that are so heinous that all states should take some responsibility?

Derek Thomas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Last November, I supported military action in Syria because our armed forces are able to reduce the capability and advance of Daesh, and the evil that it espouses. The debate on the day was about not just military action in Syria, but achieving a political solution in that area of the middle east. Surely recognising the behaviour of Daesh against minority groups—it is well documented and not disputed—as genocide is an important part of such a political solution.

Jim Cunningham: People talk about reconstruction, but should not part of that reconstruction involve the rehabilitation of these women, and some form of compensation for them and their families? As we heard earlier, in some communities, the stigma is there for a lifetime and cannot be got rid of. That applies particularly to Christians, who have been persecuted not only by Daesh, but in North Korea and other parts of the world.

Derek Thomas: The great challenge facing the international community is the question of how, once we have achieved peace in Syria and Iraq, we can secure it so that people can rebuild their own countries. I suspect that many people will never be able to move back to their countries simply because of their memories of the horrors that they have experienced. We as an international community must do all that we can to support those people, wherever they may end up rebuilding their lives.
The British people are horrified by what they hear and see regarding the treatment of these minority groups in Syria and Iraq, and they rightly expect the House of Commons to use whatever tools are available to work to bring that to an end and to achieve peace in this troubled part of the world. A tool that is available to us is a recognition of these evil acts as genocide, and our position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to enable the situation to be investigated by the International Criminal Court. People are being brutalised, raped and murdered, and we have a moral responsibility to seek justice for them.

Stephen Timms: I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate, on her indefatigable work in this area, and on the way in which she opened the debate. I apologise for having missed the first few minutes of her speech. I am grateful to her for organising yesterday’s evidence session, to which every speaker so far has referred, and which included harrowing personal testimony about the horrors that Daesh is inflicting on people in Iraq and Syria whose religious outlook and faith are different from Daesh’s.
It is difficult to deny that what is going on meets the tests for genocide. Of course the bar is set high, and rightly so, but large numbers of Yazidis, Christians and Shi’a Muslims have been killed. It is clear—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)—that that meets the test set out in the convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide, as it is action committed
“with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.
It is clear that that is what Daesh is seeking to do.
I think that Pope Francis was right when, last year, he described the killing of Christians in the middle east as genocide. As we have heard, the United States Secretary of State and the US Congress have recognised what is happening as genocide—last month, I think—and we should do so as well. We understand that the Government are likely to argue that it is for the judiciary, not Parliament, to make such a determination, but it is not clear to me—perhaps the Minister will be able to explain—what trigger for judicial action could lead to the view, which I think we all share, that genocide is under way. I hope very much that the House will agree to the motion, so that the Government can make the reference for which the hon. Member for Congleton has argued.

Jim Cunningham: My right hon. Friend has asked a very interesting question. We should bear in mind that it was the allies who set up the Nuremberg courts. Governments can, in fact, get together and do something.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not clear to me how this can happen in the United Kingdom if the Government do not act. Last night we heard from a young woman, who has been referred to already, who had seen her father and brothers killed simply for being Yazidis. She herself had been raped and enslaved. She made very clear in her evidence that what was going on was genocide, of Yazidis and also of Christians—she made it clear that Christians were included in the genocide—and as US Secretary of State John Kerry pointed out, it is certainly the case that Shi’a Muslims have been victims of genocide as well.

Rehman Chishti: The right hon. Gentleman says that Shi’a Muslims have also been killed by Daesh. Does he agree that Daesh itself has no religion, in that it kills Muslims who stand in the way of its warped ideology? Whatever a person’s faith, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, if they stand against Daesh, they will be killed.

Stephen Timms: I think the hon. Gentleman is right, but it is clear that Shi’a Muslims have been singled out. For example, in a prison just north of Mosul, nearly 600 were picked out from the rest of the inmates because they were Turkmen Shi’a Muslims, and were machine-gunned one by one. I hope that we can make a clear statement today that this is genocide, both to express solidarity with Yazidis, Christians and Shi’a Muslims who are the victims of this horrifying brutality, and to make clear our determination to ensure that those responsible face prosecution and a just punishment for what they have done.
I want to make some observations on how we can deal with the commitment to religious freedom that we all espouse. I recognise and pay tribute to the work of past and present Ministers on this, but we should be doing more. Others are doing more, and we should as  well. I commend to the Minister an idea that was in the last Labour party election manifesto: the Government should appoint a global envoy for religious freedom, who would report directly to the Prime Minister, and establish within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a multi-faith advisory council on religious freedom. That would be an important way for us to acknowledge and publicly commit to the importance of British influence being wielded on this front, through the work of Ministers and the Foreign Office around the world.
The Canadian Government deserve credit for establishing an Office of Religious Freedom. It has had a positive impact, but I am sorry to hear that it is now being wound down. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom was established a long time ago, in 1998, and it is an attractive model, with commissioners appointed by the President and by the leadership of both political parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Last December, the commission called for the US Government to designate the Christian, Yazidi, Turkmen and Shabak communities in Iraq and Syria as victims of genocide by ISIL.

Nicola Blackwood: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good case. I entirely support the motion, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate. It is clear that ISIS is using rape as a strategic weapon of war. It is being used not only as a form of ethnic cleansing but as an unthinkable form of forced conversion. One victim recounted being shown an officially headed ISIS letter stating that any captured woman would become a Muslim if 10 ISIS fighters raped her. Will the right hon. Gentleman support my call to the Government today to assemble a specific preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative team to support local health and criminal justice teams in gathering evidence, so that these appalling crimes do not go unpunished?

Stephen Timms: I gladly support the hon. Lady’s call.
The legislation in the US that created the Commission on International Religious Freedom also mandated the State Department to prepare an annual report on international religious freedom. The last one was published just a year ago, and I imagine that we are about to see the next one in two or three weeks’ time. This means that the US Congress and Government have a serious and consistent deployment of effort to wield influence in favour of religious freedom around the world. We do that in a much more ad-hoc way; we should do it in the much more consistent way that the US example demonstrates.
I hope that the House will be united this afternoon in supporting the call by the hon. Member for Congleton for the Government to recognise what is happening  to Yazidis, Christians and Shi’a Muslims in Iraq and Syria as genocide. I hope that we will be able to build on this, and that the Government will make a consistent commitment to religious freedom around the world.

Caroline Ansell: I to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for her great courage and compassion, and for  taking such a strong lead in this debate. I rise to support the motion calling on the Government to recognise the appalling acts by Daesh against the Yazidis, Christians and others as genocide. It bears repeating that genocide is defined as
“acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.
Have we seen evidence of such intent? Yes, indisputably, in the kidnapping of women and girls; in torture, rape and sexual enslavement; in beheadings, crucifixions and mass graves; in the assassination of Church leaders and the desecration and destruction of churches, cemeteries and artefacts; and in the enforced conversions and the driving of people from their lands. We should remember the plight of the 40,000 Yazidis trapped on a mountainside in 2014, and the airdrops made to save them from certain death.
Yesterday, I heard first-hand testimony in this place from a very brave, scarred young woman who had escaped her captors. However, testimony comes not just from victims but through the self-proclamation of the perpetrators in thought, word and deed. How do they plead to the charge of the murder and subjugation of Yazidis and Christians? They claim credit.
This Government are committed to upholding human rights, supporting projects the world over and dedicating millions in funding to that end. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. I understand that what stands in the way of us formally calling Daesh’s atrocities genocide is the question of legal standing. The term “genocide” is a legal definition and can seemingly be determined only by the International Criminal Court. So what can we do? We can call for evidence to be formally collected. We can call this in by referring the matter to the United Nations, so that it can give jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court. Daesh is indiscriminate in who it hurts, but it reserves particular cruelties for Yazidis, Christians and other minority ethnic groups. How best can we support those groups of persecuted people at this moment? We can call their suffering what it is: genocide.

Steve Pound: I was particularly struck by the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). If we do appoint a global envoy, may I suggest that my right hon. Friend’s name be put forward? He held a similar position under Tony Blair, and I can think of no one better qualified. Much praise has already been given to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and we should place on record the fact that in the short time she has been in the House, she has won for herself a reputation for great courage and determination as a defender of the weak, the poor and the defenceless. She has earned a great reputation, and she has done an enormous amount of good on these matters. She is ably followed by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in that regard. It is an honour to be speaking in a debate instigated by the hon. Lady. I am also glad to see two of the more humane Government Ministers on the Treasury Bench today. I am confident that they will respond in a way that reflects the emotion that is being felt right across the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Congleton listed the litany of horrors that we have heard, both last night and on so many other occasions. It seems almost otiose to repeat  them, but I shall recount one chilling and almost unbelievably brutal incident. A group of captured young men were lined up and made to strip to the waist and hold their arms up. Those who had no hair under their arms were considered young enough to be taken away, indoctrinated and turned into bombers or jihadists; those who showed signs of puberty or maturity were shot. The fact that anyone can act with such callous, utter brutality in this day and age is almost beyond belief. The fact that they do it in the name of a religion, the name of which means peace, is absolutely unforgivable, impossible to contemplate and utterly inexcusable.
To anyone out there who thinks that this ghastly, nihilist death cult can in any way triumph, may I say what a pleasure it is to see the Palmyra arch being erected in Trafalgar Square as a physical demonstration of our commitment? Daesh can crush, destroy, kill, rape or maim, but it will never, ever win. It will not be allowed to win, because if it does, darkness will descend on the earth and we will be in a terrifying place.
The motion is extremely well crafted and beautifully phrased—I do not want to heap overmuch praise on the hon. Member for Congleton, because she is already embarrassed—and using the definition within it is incredibly important. We are quite rightly concentrating on the horrific circumstances of the Yazidis, but let us not forget that Daesh has probably killed more Muslims than people from any other religious or ethnic group. It does not in any way defend or protect its co-religionists; it slaughters indiscriminately.

Rob Flello: I gently take my hon. Friend to task for saying “indiscriminately”. Daesh does kill indiscriminately when it comes to some groups, but it absolutely discriminates when it comes to Christians and Yazidis, because it wants to exterminate them and completely eradicate them from the world.

Steve Pound: My hon. Friend quite correctly takes me to task. I meant that Daesh’s slaughter was universal, but it does of course target some groups specifically.
At least one hon. Member present has been with me to northern Iraq, actually broken bread with members of the Assyrian Christian community, and seen the lives that they lived. Their lives were always difficult, but they were able to live and practise their faith in something approaching peace, even under the dark days of Saddam Hussein. To see those people now being hunted down, specifically discriminated against and slaughtered on the grounds of their faith is utterly chilling and terrifying. Is it not extraordinary how many of them refuse to recant or recuse, and how many say, “This is our faith”? In some cases, they die for that faith. That is extraordinary and testament to the courage that still exists. As for a specific genocide, the Jewish people are also being destroyed. The magnificent, huge Jewish community in Iraq that did so much for the country is being specifically hunted down and destroyed. We must never forget that whole groups of people are suffering.
This comes down to the word “genocide”. I have had so many debates on the Floor of the House about the Armenian genocide of 1915. I call it genocide, but I appreciate that the House chooses not to call the massacre of nearly 2 million Armenians a genocide because the word was not promulgated until 1948. In reality, however, we know it was genocide. To deny that recognition  through the use of the word to a group of people who suffered that way is a double discrimination. It is a double death, in many ways. Let us call this what it is: this is genocide, and Daesh must not be allowed to triumph and win.
What can we do in this House? We must of course make the reference to the United Nations, but I want to speak beyond this House for a moment. We are not in a hermetically sealed bubble here; we are the sounding board of the nation. People are watching us and listening to us, and it is possible that somewhere in the dark places of our cities and towns there are people who are tempted by this death cult. There may be people who, as an excuse for their own inadequacies or some compensation for their failures, like the idea that they can go and die gloriously for this twisted philosophy. I want to speak to those outside this Chamber for a second. If anyone watching thinks that the great religion of Islam is calling them to go and slaughter children or unborn babies, to rape, to loot or to murder, read the holy Koran, the hadiths and the surahs. They will not find those words in the holy book. If anyone out there huddled away in darkness actually feels tempted for a moment to leave this country, their city, or our community to go and kill before they die, please think. They have the gift of life at the present time. Hold that gift of life. It is too precious to throw away, as are the lives of others; their lives matter just as much.
Why are Christians, Muslims, Assyrian Christians, the Shabak, and Jews being persecuted in this way? What have they done to bring this Armageddon down on their heads? They have not in any way threatened forced conversions on people who subscribe to the ISIS-Daesh philosophy. This is a war of aggression that must be described by the one word—the only word—that describes it today: genocide. This House must speak to not just fellow legislators or the United Nations, but all those out there who are thinking about the issue, and who may be even remotely tempted to move into an area so dark, deep and desperate that only the worst and most serious word, one which describes the ultimate crime, accurately describes the full horror of what is happening to communities in Syria and Iraq. We all know what that word is. Let us be united in this House, and hopefully outside, and say that what is happening is genocide, and has to be recognised as such.

Chris Green: I appreciate the contributions made by hon. Members so far, especially that of the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who made a powerful case. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for allowing us to recognise in this debate that what we are seeing in parts of Syria and Iraq is the genocide of Yazidis, Christians and other religious minorities.
As we debate the nature of what is going on in Iraq and Syria, we must understand the nature of the organisation perpetrating the crimes. Daesh and its followers have a particular interpretation of Islam, which they use to attack those who do not subscribe to the same religion or interpretation of their religion, meaning that, in addition to the targeted persecution of Christians and Yazidis, Shi’ite Muslims are also killed and persecuted, as are many Sunni Muslims.
When the Sinjar disaster happened, 200,000 Yazidis were driven from their homes, with 40,000 trapped on Mount Sinjar, where they faced either slaughter by Daesh if they came down or dehydration and death if they remained. The number of Christians in Syria has dropped from 2 million to 1 million, and their number in Iraq has dropped from 1.4 million to fewer than 260,000.

Seema Kennedy: Like other Members, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for securing the debate. The figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) cites are very much an example of the fact that Christianity is dying in its cradle, which is why so many of our constituents who are fellow Christians have contacted us about this genocide. Does he agree?

Chris Green: Absolutely. This is why many people in Britain are leading the debate, because they recognise this to be a genocide, and I appreciate that many, if not all, Members in this Chamber agree with so many of the British people.
Daesh is creating what it would deem to be the caliphate, targeting those who do not fit into that vision. We have seen the systematic persecution, torture, enslavement, rape, kidnap and murder of a number of groups solely because of their religious identity. Daesh’s desire to establish a caliphate in the territory it holds is only a starting point; it is intending to draw many more Muslims from across the region, Europe and beyond. Clearly, Daesh is an expansionist organisation that has far greater territorial ambitions than to hold on to the land it currently has, and so, given the opportunity, it will take more land and subject more people to the systematic persecution and killing with which we have become familiar.

Kevin Foster: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that this issue has many of the hallmarks of what we faced 75 years ago, in that Daesh is like National Socialism: it is not just a movement trying to take over one country; it is a movement trying to make a race and a belief dominant, and in doing so eliminate its opponents?

Chris Green: My hon. Friend is entirely right to speak of Daesh in this ideological way. People are getting caught up in this and are divorced from their humanity—the humanity they would have been raised with and that see around them. More must be done to ensure that we tackle that extremism, be it online or from other sources.
The continued existence of Daesh means it will continue to be a draw and an inspiration if this caliphate does take hold and persist. To see that, we need only look at Libya, where Daesh-inspired terrorists kidnapped and beheaded 21 Coptic Christians—the anniversary of that was recently marked by a service in the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft.
Genocide is fundamentally about committing acts with the intent to destroy, in part or in whole, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Although the classification of “genocide” is a matter of legal rather than political interpretation, for the international courts and the United  Nations Security Council, this is not simply a debate about semantics. Furthermore, it is important for the British people, through their Government and the media, to understand what is going on in the middle east. Does the term “human rights violation” really fit what we see happening to Christians in the region? Can the systematic and targeted attacks on the Yazidis really be understood by referring to them as one of a number of middle eastern “humanitarian crises”?
The UK is playing a leading role in a global coalition of 66 countries and international organisations responding to Daesh’s inhumanity, but I join the voices of many in this House by asking the Government to make a referral to the UN Security Council. A referral from the Security Council is the only means by which the International Criminal Court can investigate and prosecute these acts of genocide. Genocide is understood by most to be the gravest crime against humanity, and this is what is being perpetrated by Daesh. We have a responsibility as a democratic nation to apply pressure to the international judicial bodies.

Gerald Kaufman: In an impressive speech, the hon. Gentleman has, like other Members, used the word “genocide” to describe the treatment of Christians and Yazidis. Does he think it would be helpful and possibly powerful if there were a vote on this motion, so that this House confirmed its definition of the treatment of the Christians and Yazidis as genocide?

Chris Green: I shall end by saying how much I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this House needs to have a vote so that we can make that point loud and clear.

Natalie McGarry: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on a motion that is of supreme importance to me personally. I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate and echo her thanks for the work done in the House of Lords in the past few years to bring this issue to the attention of the UK population and us in this place. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate to take place.
I wanted to write a speech that would provide evidence that this was a genocide, but that has been covered by other Members, including the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) and for Congleton. Therefore, I will focus my remarks on my experience and why this subject is so important to me, and why it is so important to us as a humanitarian country—a country that believes in human rights.
As a Member of Parliament, I have, over the past eight or nine months, travelled to Rojava, in Syria, to the Kurdistan Regional Government region of Iraq and to Turkey. I have been to the refugee camps of the Yazidi people: I have been to the Nowruz camp in Rojava and to refugee camps outside Batman and Diyarbakir in Turkey. I have spoken to many men, women and children—Yazidis and Alevis—who have been affected by the actions of Daesh. Their lives have been inexorably and demonstrably changed by what has  happened to them in their communities and in their countries. It is that experience that brings me here to the Chamber today to speak and to show how what is happening is genocide.
I was in Rojava for eight days. I met members of the organisation Yekitiya Star, to which other Members have referred, in which Kurdish women—Muslims, not Yazidi women—work with Yazidi women to try to bring back those women who have been abducted, raped and brutalised. They have experienced barbarism. Those women who have had these terrible experiences—the worst experiences—are ashamed to return to their communities because of what has happened to them. Children of nine and 10 have been raped and impregnated. They are victims of a brutal system that demeans religions and demeans people. The system is about bringing them to account. Those women spoke powerfully to all of us who were there in Rojava. They told us that people from the Kurdish movement in Rojava were buying back women at auctions, using the resources of Rojava to bring women back from slavery. Sometimes they were found out. Sometimes Daesh worked out that they were trying to stop the enslavement by buying back the women. In such cases, those women disappeared. These are powerful stories of what is happening to women and men in that area.
I had a perfectly crafted speech to read out, but I have decided to speak freely. Yesterday, I listened to the testimony of Ekhlas, a 15-year-old who was abducted from her house. I will not paraphrase what she said, as I took down her words directly. I will read out her testimony, as her voice and the voice of the Yazidi and Alevi women deserve to be heard in this place. If anyone wants to intervene on me, could they do so now, as I will read out Ekhlas’s words.
“There was a knock at our door. We were targeted because our religion and belief is different from theirs, and our humanity is different from theirs, because we believe in the Angel Taus. In our religion, we do not believe in rape. We do not believe that innocents should be killed, or that a child should be cut up and his mother forced to eat him. My father and my two brothers were killed in front of me. They took me away from my mother. He grabbed my arm and my leg and then he raped me. He was 32 years old; I was 15. After they raped me, they took my friend and they raped her. I could hear her shouting, ‘Where is the mercy? Where is the mercy? There must be some mercy in their hearts.’ They killed the men and they took the girls. Any girls over the age of nine were raped—like me. What does a nine year understand about sex or rape? What did she do to deserve this? I saw this nine-year-old girl raped with my own eyes, by not one man but several. I saw her die”
because her body could not handle the brutality.
“We saw a two-year-old boy killed, then ground in to meat and fed to his mother who did not know what she was eating.”
Some younger girls were taken. She said:
“Some young girls were impregnated, and were only children. What are they going to do as pregnant children? There is so much brainwashing. Daesh tell you your religion and brainwash children”.
They arm them, and they
“put them in front of their own parents and demand that they kill them. Listen to me, I am begging you. Listen to me, listen to what I am telling. Help us. I beg of you. Listen to me. Help the girls who are still in captivity. Let us all stand hand-in-hand and take a stand. This is a genocide against Christians and Yazidis”—
and others—
“This is about dignity, this is about humanity in dignity. If you are a mother, a father, a brother, a sister, a human, do not close your ears. I plead with you, please listen.”
This is a genocide.

Nusrat Ghani: That was a very moving speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry).
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate.
“We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women. If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”
That is Daesh. For the members of this death cult, the destruction of a way of life, an ideology and a set of beliefs that is not theirs is both their ultimate and sole aim. Daesh are self-defining as committers of genocide. To achieve that, they rape, they enslave, they decapitate. Their victims are Muslims, Kurds, Yazidis and Christians.
The Syrian Centre for Policy Research estimates that in Syria, approximately 470,000 people have been killed either directly or indirectly as a result of the five years of civil war. What is most shocking is that the United Nations has given up estimating the number, because the numbers are so vast that it cannot provide verifiable statistics. Whatever the number of those killed, millions more have been displaced and lost. Each cowardly act of death and destruction is just that—a cowardly act—but put together, these acts make up a reign of terror, targeted at a specific group of people. This is the systematic murder—genocide—of the people who form these communities, the cultural heritage that has tied them together for generations and the values and beliefs that define them.
I heard first hand what Daesh do. I was lucky—or unlucky—enough to meet a young, brave Yazidi woman called Nadia Murad, in a meeting co-ordinated by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), for which I give him credit. She had been taken by Daesh as a sex slave. Her race was justification enough for the horrific way in which she, her family and her community were mistreated and destroyed.
We failed to prevent genocide in Bosnia. In Germany, the Nazis were appeased while they targeted Jews. The death cult of misfits that we face now cannot be allowed to get away with this any longer. In Iraq and Syria, Daesh’s statements have taken credit for the mass murder and persecution of Christians and have shown its clear intent to purge Christian communities from the area it claims as its own. As a country, we show a weakness by failing to acknowledge the extent of the persecution against Yazidis, Christians and other ethnic and religious minorities. We are failing the victims of deliberate and targeted persecution, where race, faith and gender are all the excuse that Daesh needs to find new and innocent targets for mass murder. If we do not recognise these acts as genocide, we effectively declare that we are not willing to take all action necessary to bring it to an end and to bring the perpetrators to justice, as they deserve.

Robert Jenrick: A week after the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) brought Nadia Murad to the House of Commons, I was fortunate enough to bring her to the Public Gallery here. In fact, she went up there with my wife who, incidentally, is the daughter of holocaust survivors. Afterwards, as I am sure the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber will agree, Nadia was so grateful.  I could not understand why she was so grateful to us, but I think it was because she had faith in this House. She genuinely believed that we would act to help her and her people. She was not one of our jaded constituents. She thought that this House meant something, and that we would do something to help her and her people.

Nusrat Ghani: My hon. Friend is right. As the oldest democracy in the world, we have a responsibility to Nadia Murad also.
We would be complicit in overlooking the scale of criminality that is ongoing and largely unpunished. That is not a position that a country steadfast in its commitment to fairness, freedom and justice should be relaxed about. The UN Security Council’s declaring these acts to be genocide is key to preventing the spread of terrorism and radicalisation, and it allows an international criminal tribunal to be set up to try the terrorists who are committing these heinous acts and to bring them to true justice. That is why I support the motion.
On 12 April, when the Minister was challenged on the issue, he said:
“I too believe that acts of genocide have taken place”.—[Official Report, 12 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 165.]
I hope we can move on from that statement today.

Michael Tomlinson: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I was present when the Minister gave that response. Does my hon. Friend hope, as I do, that this afternoon the whole House will be given the opportunity to send a powerful message by voting and being united in that vote, and inviting Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries—those on the payroll—to vote as well, to send a strong message that what is happening is genocide?

Nusrat Ghani: My hon. Friend makes a powerful statement. I, too, hope that is the case. Sending cross-party support today will also be a very strong message.
Previous generations have already struggled to explain Bosnia, Rwanda and the Nazi persecutions. Now it is our turn to decide whether we will have to explain to future generations what we did or did not do against the death cult Daesh. Historical memory can be a tool of prevention, but it is rare that society uses it in that way. Let us be the generation that does use it as a tool of prevention. The Nazis wrote history, the Bosnian Serbs wrote history, and Daesh is currently destroying and rewriting history all at once. Not satisfied with destroying the past and present of races, faiths and genders, it is destroying the future of those communities too. It is our collective job, as a member of the UN family of nations, to make sure that those communities are not just a blot of ink in the story of Daesh.

Ian Blackford: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani). I agree with every word she said. We have had a fantastic debate today and, like her, I hope the Government will support the motion so that we can move forward and ensure that action is taken as a consequence of the debate.
Many hon. Members have already congratulated the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on tabling the motion. She is to be congratulated. We should be proud that we are debating a matter of such importance in the House today.
We have a moral responsibility to speak out against the crimes of genocide that have taken place against Christians, Yazidis and other ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria. We should be exercising that responsibility today by passing the motion, which calls upon the UK Government to make an immediate referral to the UN Security Council to grant the International Criminal Court the mandate to bring the perpetrators to justice.
As the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) recently reminded the House, the allied Governments made a joint statement on 17 December 1942 condemning genocide and committing themselves to bringing the Nazis to justice for their crimes. Just as we stood against genocide then and made sure that those responsible would face justice, we must show the required leadership today when faced with genocide in Syria and Iraq. The Government need to show leadership in pressing for recognition of the fact that genocide has taken place, and we must all reflect on why, on a moral, ethical and humanitarian basis, action must be taken.
Genocide is understood as the deliberate, systematic extermination of national, racial, political or cultural groups, and that is exactly what has been taking place. The ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Syria have seen the deliberate targeting of Yazidis, Christians and other minority groups. The Yazidi town of Sinjar was captured by Daesh in August 2014, and the seizure of the town and the surrounding districts unleased the ethnic cleansing of the Yazidi people. A UN report tells us that 200,000 Yazidis were driven from their homes after the fall of Sinjar. At least 40,000 were trapped on Mount Sinjar; cut off by Daesh, these people were without food, water or shelter. As has been said, the choice for many was slaughter by Daesh if they fled or dehydration if they stayed.
The UN has estimated that 5,000 men were massacred and 7,000 women were enslaved in that action. The women captured by Daesh were sold into sexual slavery, and many were displaced throughout Daesh-controlled territory. As we have heard, the testimony of survivors—Yazidis and Christians—tells of the horrific and daily violence carried out against them, and that has been a deliberate policy on the part of Daesh.
Last night, as we have heard, a young Yazidi woman, Ekhlas, came to Parliament to tell her story. It was a most harrowing account of what had happened to her and her family—a graphic description of what has happened not only to her, but to thousands of other people in Syria and Iraq. Before Ekhlas spoke, she was introduced by a human rights lawyer, Jacqueline Isaac. Jacqueline spoke of the fear of the knock on the door by fighters from Daesh, which would lead to people being categorised into different groups, with murder, rape and hostage-taking commonplace. That is exactly what took place with the Nazis in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. That resulted in the UK Government signalling their intent in 1942 to bring the perpetrators to justice. If that was right in 1942, it is right in this House today, in 2016.
When we close this debate, I hope that the House and the Government will unite in supporting the motion, and that we can do the right thing for the Yazidis, Christians and other minorities who have suffered the wholesale removal of their communities from the region.

Tommy Sheppard: My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does he agree that although these minorities are being persecuted because of their religion, the debate should not be about advocating one religion or another? This is about the basic human right for all of us to pursue any faith we choose or none. Does he recognise that there are many people of different faiths in the House, but that there are also people of no faith, who will defend to the bitter end the right of others to exercise their faith and to do so without persecution?

Ian Blackford: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which has not been made so far. As a practising Christian, I am happy to accept everyone’s right to express their religion, whatever it is, or none at all. It is important that in this Chamber today we stand up for everybody.
When Ekhlas closed her submission last night, she implored us to help—she said, “I’m asking for help.” Our responsibility to Ekhlas and everybody else means that we must heed that plea. What will we do for Ekhlas? We must stand up and support the call for the UN Security Council to confer jurisdiction on the International Criminal Court so that we can take action.
The peshmerga attacked the place where Ekhlas was being held, and she managed to escape, before being rescued by Yazidis. This brave young woman, who has faced so much and witnessed such utter horrors, wants to become a lawyer and to fight for women’s rights. Maybe, just maybe, if she fulfils that ambition, she can play her part in the legal team that brings her persecutors to justice. We must help her and those like her who have suffered from the genocide.
The situation in Syria and Iraq is catastrophic and has led to one of the worst humanitarian crises we have ever witnessed. ADF International says that the number of Christians in Syria has fallen from 2 million in 2011 to 1 million in 2015. The number of Christians in Iraq has fallen from 1.4 million to 260,000.
Daesh has documented in its official propaganda its specific intention to destroy Christian groups in Syria and Iraq. In February 2015, Daesh seized 35 Assyrian Christian villages and kidnapped more than 300 Christians, with more than 1,200 fleeing to safety. Thirty-five villages were cleared and deserted in that one act alone.
The atrocities satisfy the criteria established in the convention on genocide. Recognising that genocide has taken place and signalling that those responsible will face justice is an important tool in the fight to defeat Daesh. We need to send a clear message to all the minorities that are being attacked that we are not going to abandon them. We and other nations must stand shoulder to shoulder at the United Nations and show our resolve.

Chris Stephens: I agree with my hon. Friend that the perpetrators of this genocide should be brought to justice in the International Criminal Court. Does he agree that there also needs to be an international effort to find the Yazidi women captured by Daesh?

Ian Blackford: I fully agree. The young woman we met last night is a perfect example of that: the actions of the peshmerga managed to free her and she got into the safe hands of the Yazidis. We need to support the  peshmerga and other like-minded people to make sure that we can get to safety the women and men captured by Daesh.
I hope that when the Minister sums up the debate, he makes it clear that the Government support the motion. Others have already taken a similar step. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recognised genocide in a resolution passed on 27 January. That was followed by a European Parliament resolution on 4 February, which recognised the crimes as genocide and sought a referral to the International Criminal Court. On 14 March, the US House of Representatives recognised the crimes against humanity and of genocide. Three days later, the US Secretary Of State announced that the US had determined that the Daesh actions against the Yazidis, Christians and other minorities constituted genocide.
Why have the UK Government been silent and why has no action been taken? The Foreign Secretary has said that the Government support the efforts of the International Criminal Court to end impunity for the most serious crimes of international concern by holding perpetrators to account, but the Court has to be enabled to do that, and the UN Security Council has to provide that enablement. We keep hearing about the importance of the UK’s membership of the Security Council, so today is the United Kingdom’s chance to show leadership and to take action—to stand up for Ekhlas and to respond to her plea for help for all those who have suffered. Are we going to do the right thing in 2016, just as we did in 1942, or are we just going to stand back, wring our hands and watch as Daesh reaps its bitter harvest?
The UK is a signatory to the convention on genocide. We have an obligation to recognise what has taken place. I hope and pray that this afternoon the House, collectively and united, does the right thing.

David Warburton: I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on her tremendous efforts in securing the debate.
Words matter, and saying that Daesh is committing acts of genocide against Christians and Yazidis is not just a statement of fact, because it also forces us to realise that genocide is, unfortunately, an inherent part of Daesh’s depraved operations. The acts that have been mentioned today, including the assassination of church leaders, systematic torture and mass murder, mock crucifixions, sexual enslavement and systematic rape, which the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) spoke about in shocking, appalling and powerful detail, are genocidal not just by consequence, but by design. That distinction is clear in Daesh’s propaganda sheet “Dabiq”, the latest edition of which attacks any form of pluralism or tolerance as being in direct contradiction to its twisted view of Islam, stating:
“the death of a single Muslim, no matter his role in society, is more grave…than the massacre of every kafir on earth.”
The same article explicitly clarifies:
“Any disbeliever standing in the way of the Islamic State will be killed, without pity or remorse, until…governance is entirely for Allah.”
Such sentiments are incompatible with the presence of minority groups in Daesh territory, and we are seeing a  concentrated effort by Daesh not only to obliterate any minority presence, but to deny the cultural history of the territory that it seeks to occupy.
The number of Christians in Syria has halved, and in Iraq it has dropped from 1.4 million to just 240,000. Perhaps even more striking is that the historical settlement of 60,000 Christians in Mosul has entirely disappeared. Along with that, there has been a targeted destruction of sites, including St Elijah’s monastery, historic libraries and any representational art. Edicts have instructed Daesh troops to engage in the wholesale destruction of any non-Islamic sites of worship.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and Daesh’s ignorance and denial of the historical and cultural nature of the area is crucial. I studied the early caliphate, and in that period many leaders of the Muslim world described the classical world that they took over as a garden protected by their spears. Is it not tragic that Daesh’s perversion of Islam is so different from the vision set out by those early caliphs?

David Warburton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not only tragic but bizarre and unimaginable that Daesh has taken its own religion and turned it into something so distinctly different from what was intended.

Robert Jenrick: Last year I and several other Members persuaded the Government to create a £30 million cultural protection fund, and they are in the process of deciding the criteria for how that will be spent. Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the money should go to the heritage and sites of persecuted religious minorities, such as Christian and Yazidi groups in Syria and Iraq, to protect historic sites, churches and manuscripts for future generations?

David Warburton: I could not agree more. The cultural demolition is explicitly linked to the genocidal aims that we are discussing.
To say that Christians and Yazidis are victims of genocide is not to minimise the terrible suffering of others in the region. In a debate held on a similar motion in another place, Lord Bates was entirely right to point out that it is often Muslims who suffer the greatest brutality at the hands of Daesh. Over the past six months, the United States Congress, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the US Secretary of State have all declared that Daesh is committing genocide.

Kirsten Oswald: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the bodies that have declared that genocide is being committed. Having heard from Daesh itself, and having been witness to so many young Yazidi women who come here to tell us their story, what more could it take for this House to form the view that this is genocide, and to have the courage to stand up and say so?

David Warburton: I agree with the hon. Lady, and the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow East gave us an immensely powerful first-person perspective.
I completely understand the Government’s approach, which is that a decision on whether the word “genocide” is applicable is for international judicial bodies, rather than Governments or other non-judicial bodies. However, as the open letter from a group of peers to the Prime Minister on 18 February stated,
“there is nothing to prevent Her Majesty’s Government from forming and acting upon its own view”.
A vote for the motion would begin the process of a possible referral to the International Criminal Court from the UN Security Council. It would send a signal to the perpetrators that they will be brought to justice and it would, perhaps most crucially of all, act as a spur to the other 127 signatories to the 1948 convention to add their support. An émigré writer of a previous generation who fled persecution said:
“Words without experience are meaningless.”
The reverse is also true. When hundreds of thousands of people are suffering in such a way, we must apply the only word that is adequate for the job, and support this important motion.

Jim Shannon: I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party group on Pakistan minorities, and of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief—for those with Christian beliefs, those with other beliefs and those with no beliefs, who the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) mentioned in his intervention.
The organisation that we are talking about has many names—IS, Islamic State, ISIL, ISIS and Daesh—and many guises but, above all, it is made up of systematic, psychopathic serial killers. The subject of the debate is clear: it is about ethnic and religious minorities such as the Yazidis and the Christians. I am pleased to see the Minister in the Chamber and look forward to hearing his response. We have talked about the matter this year on a personal basis. I hope that today Members will express ourselves clearly about what we wish to do regarding the word “genocide”. We have heard many powerful, passionate and focused speeches, and I particularly want to highlight the speech made by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who set the scene very well. I am pleased to have her not only as a colleague, but as a friend.
The Daesh atrocities rival any atrocity in modern history. Too many people turn a blind eye or offer only weak words, and some even attempt to rationalise Daesh’s actions. Strong words have been spoken in the House today, and what this self-declared state is doing is absolutely disgraceful. Will it care if its actions are called genocide or not? No, it will not, but we in this House and in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should set the bar for the rest of the international community by saying that this cannot go on without it being condemned to the utmost and labelled appropriately as what it is—genocide. I correspond with some 90 churches in my constituency, and they feel very strongly about this brutality, violence, depravity and evil. We must be ever mindful of the fact that those who survive physically are traumatised forever.
Islamic State militants are selling abducted Iraqi children at markets as sex slaves and killing other youth by means including crucifixion or burial alive. They are  given a “convert or die” ultimatum—that is genocide. Twenty-one Egyptian Christians were kidnapped in the Libyan coastal city of Sirte in two separate incidents in December 2014 and January 2015. In February 2015, they were beheaded on a Libyan beach in a chilling propaganda video produced by the self-declared Islamic State—that is genocide. After capturing the key strategic town of al-Baghdadi, which is just five miles from the al-Asad air base, Daesh rounded up 45 civilians from the town, some of whom were thought to be Iraqi security forces and their families, and burned them all alive—that is genocide.
On 10 June 2014, Daesh took some 600 male prisoners into the desert near Mosul in Iraq and initiated a mass execution. Approximately 30 men survived by rolling into the mass grave with the dead bodies. The pictures are absolutely chilling and call to mind terrifying memories of the worst genocide of the 20th century. A survivor recounts a Daesh leader saying:
“The Sunnis must stand on one side. The Shi’a, Kurds and Yazidis must stand on the other. If I find out that a Shi’a is among the Sunnis, I am going to cut off his head with a sheet of metal.”
Such words are spoken by those in Daesh who have a hatred for everyone who is not of their kind.
The men were interrogated about their beliefs, names, home towns and other details. Witnesses said that about 100 Shi’a prisoners were successful at pretending to be Sunni to escape further violence. The remaining Shi’a, Kurdish, Christian and Yazidi prisoners were then searched. Everything was taken from them: their money, their watches, their rings, their jewellery and their identity cards. One survivor said:
“The moment they made us give up all of our possessions, I knew they were going to kill us.”
The prisoners had been given no food or water for 24 hours, but Daesh militants promised them supplies as they drove deeper into the desert. When they arrived, the militants told them,
“you’ll have water in paradise.”
The militants then made the men kneel in a single line along the rim of a curved ravine six to 12 feet deep. They were asked to number themselves off, with each person forced to
“raise his hand and say his number.”
Survivors said that many of the gunmen were young. Some appeared nervous, while others were excited, including some who joked at the end of the count, when they shot the prisoners, that they had “a nice-size head”, and some who said that they were going to “eat well tonight”. That is genocide.
Further documented incidents include the 1,700 captives executed in Tikrit in Iraq, the 650 people executed in Mosul in Iraq, the 1,000 Turks who were massacred, including some 100 children, and the more than 2,000 women and children who have been kidnapped. In the UN’s words, this is
“systematic hunting of members of ethnic and religious groups”—
that is genocide. Women have been raped and sold, and young boys have been executed. Girls have been enslaved for sexual abuse, and children have been recruited as suicide bombers. There are more than 1 million refugees, half of them children.
I am conscious of the time, but it might help the Minister—I hope it does—if I mention what has happened in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Assembly asked the Attorney General for Northern Ireland for direction on
“whether the violence currently being perpetrated against Christians and other minority religious groups (notably Yazidis and members of certain Islamic communities) by Daesh…in territory controlled by them in Syria and Iraq constitutes genocide within the meaning of the December 9 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ‘the Genocide Convention’.”
He replied:
“If behaviour can be properly classified as genocide then a range of international law consequences ensue. The first of these consequences is the activation of the twofold undertaking by contracting parties contained in Article 1 of the Genocide Convention to prevent and to punish genocide. Article 1 reads as follows:
‘The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.’”
The day of reckoning for Daesh is here. The Attorney General for Northern Ireland has said:
“it seems to me that actual or potential victims of genocide have a right to truthful acknowledgement of their circumstances and that governments are under a corresponding duty to make such acknowledgements...I have no hesitation in saying that the violence perpetrated against these protected groups does constitute genocide.”
I hope that the Minister will keep in mind the words of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland and what he has decreed in Northern Ireland because, legally, it might help the Minister to make a decision on this matter.
Amnesty International’s publication “Ethnic Cleansing on a Historic Scale: Islamic State’s Systematic Targeting of Minorities in Northern Iraq” details, with eyewitness testimony, several more Daesh atrocities in Iraq. At least 100 men and boys have been herded together and shot to death in Kocho. Scores of men and boys have been summarily executed in Qiniyeh. More than 50 men have been rounded up and shot dead near Jdali. The dead boys, the raped girls and the captive villagers gunned down for refusing to renounce their faith are the people who die every day at the hands of ISIS or Daesh.
This is not a horror movie—I wish it was. This is taking place just a plane flight away. It is time we called this what it is: it is systematic, it is calculated, and it is genocide.

David Burrowes: It is a great pleasure to take part in this extremely important debate. The Government must be in no doubt that if the motion passes on a vote, it cannot be ignored. Other Back-Bench motions come before the House, but this one is of the very highest seriousness and importance, and we will not let it be ignored. We will return to it again and again in this House until the Government properly make a justified referral to the Security Council.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce)—she has already received enormous tributes, and she should receive more. She is very much the voice of the voiceless and a champion of human dignity. It must be said that the same is true of the noble Lord Alton, who is watching in the Gallery. He has done sterling work in trying to encourage, cajole  and entice the Government to do what is right in every sense. This is about being a voice. Indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) made a passionate speech, not least by bringing to bear the voice of those with the harrowing experience of being the victim of the appalling actions of ISIS.
The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) mentioned the replica of the Palmyra arch, which hon. Members can see when they go up to Trafalgar Square. I had the privilege of seeing it unveiled. The head of antiquities from Syria made it clear that he was proud that we were able to stand in solidarity with the Syrians who have been the victims of appalling crimes. The replica of the Palmyra arch provides a declaration of that solidarity. Today, we are standing in solidarity by declaring that this is a genocide. However, he and the victims would want us to do more, and the motion will do more, because it has teeth and aims to ensure that there are legal obligations.
The hon. Gentleman said that the message of the Palmyra arch is that ISIS cannot win. The motion is about saying that it cannot win, that it needs to be held to account and that there must be justice. The head of UNESCO said that the destruction not only of the arch, but of churches, monasteries and shrines, which has affected many religious groups, is cultural genocide. These are war crimes and ISIS needs to be held to account. The Government have recognised that there needs to be an accountability mechanism for cultural destruction, which is why I look forward to the Queen’s Speech including the belated ratification of The Hague convention and its second protocol, the purpose of which is to show that there will be accountability for cultural destruction.
It would be extraordinary if we ratified The Hague convention and provided for accountability for cultural destruction, but did not ensure that there was accountability for acts of genocide. We need to ensure that the declaration that ISIS cannot win, which is being made in Trafalgar Square, is made again today by our passing the motion unanimously. We must also take action.
I will not repeat the examples that have been mentioned, but they make the clear case that there is a deliberate and ruthless targeting not only of culture, but of history and people, whether they be Yazidis, Christians or other religious groups. There is kidnapping and enslavement. A recent UN report stated that at least 3,500 people have been enslaved. Many people have been executed—this is on jihadist websites—with that chilling demand, “Convert or die.”
We are not simply acting in solidarity or making a position statement. It is important that we hold the Government to account, as is our duty as parliamentarians. What have the Government done over the many months in which this demand has been made? There was a concern that the Government’s response would have to be categorised as “walk on by”. I say that with sadness, but if one goes back to 16 December, the noble Baroness Anelay of St Johns gave a parliamentary answer in which she said:
“We are not submitting any evidence of possible genocide against Yezidis and Christians to international courts, nor have we been asked to.”
It would be extraordinary if our Government simply sat on their hands and did not make any referrals. There are obligations on the Government under the genocide convention to take a view and act upon it.
I welcome the fact that the Government have moved on since then. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who will respond to the debate, said this month:
“we are helping to gather evidence that could be used to hold Daesh to account appropriately.”
I ask him to confirm that the Government are doing that, and that they are referring evidence that comes forward to the Security Council.
How else could we categorise the Government’s response? In some ways, they are going around in circles. As we have heard, the Minister has stated:
“We as the Government are not the prosecutor, the judge or the jury. Such matters are determined first in the international courts and in the United Nations Security Council”.—[Official Report, 12 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 165.]
However, such matters are not determined by the courts first and then in the Security Council; the Security Council has a key role to play. The Minister gave himself a way through this. The Security Council can make a referral, and that is what the motion is about. The Government cannot simply defer to the international courts and go around in circles.
Many noble Lords and eminent Queen’s counsel wrote a letter to the Prime Minister making that very point, saying:
“there is nothing to prevent Her Majesty’s Government forming and acting upon its own view.”
The Government have decided not to take a view for policy reasons—I do not understand exactly why—unlike other Governments and authorities. They could ensure that there was a referral through the Security Council mechanism, as a permanent member. I therefore repeat the question of those eminent Lords and QCs: why will the Government not
“reconsider its position and…clarify why it operates a policy of refusing to recognize acts of genocide, when so many other nations do not?”
That is the first question, but we cannot leave it at that. The Government have to ask themselves—the Minister has to explain—why they are not making proper plans and using their means to go to the Security Council to ensure that there is a referral to the International Criminal Court. Is the concern not necessarily about the evidence of genocide, but the legal consequences? Is it the concern, which was mentioned earlier, that this will, quite properly, have implications for victims, who at long last would have the assurance that there will be justice and that, if it can be achieved, they will see the perpetrators held to account before a court? Those people would also, importantly, have the opportunity to be recognised as victims so that there could be reparation and restoration—not in a digital form, as with the Palmyra arch, but in a real form for their lives that have been seriously damaged. There are also implications of settlement and safety for refugees, particularly from religious minorities, who are struggling to find proper routes of safe passage. Is that the Government’s concern? Please assuage my fears and say that it is not.
Today we are making a declaration of solidarity. We are all saying to the Government that they must hold ISIS to account for the gravest of grave crimes, namely genocide. Be assured that we will not let the Government ignore the motion. They must take action for the good of all the groups we have mentioned, and the good of the whole civilised world.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I would rather not restrain this important and sombre debate, but I now have to reduce the time limit for speeches to five minutes.

Mark Durkan: Like others, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for giving the House the opportunity to respond to the pleas that we have heard from a number of Yazidi young women who have come here to tell us not just of their experience, but of the plight of those like them who remain in captivity.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) gave a passionate speech, in which she quoted Ekhlas’s words yesterday. I too had written down those words. As other Members have said, we have heard from Nadia Murad, who, in a meeting hosted by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) and sponsored by the all-party parliamentary group on human rights, told us of her experiences. We also heard from Salwa Khalaf Rasho, in March. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have hosted women witnesses who have come to give us their testimony: the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), and the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has such experience in the region.
This is what we heard from Nadia:
“Islamic State had one intention, to destroy the Yazidi identity by force, rape, recruitment of children and the destruction of holy sites they captured, especially against Yazidi women where they used rape as a means of destruction for Yazidi women and girls, ensuring these women will never return to a normal life. But it was not only me who suffered, it was a collective suffering. The Islamic State gave us two choices, convert or die. For those who accepted to convert, fearing for their lives, their men were killed, women were enslaved and children were recruited.”
She went on to speak of the desperate journeys that many people tried to make. She not only appealed to us to recognise the genocide happening to her people—and other minorities, including Christians in Iraq and Syria—for what it is, but asked:
“Open your borders for my community, we are victims of a genocide and we have the right to seek a safe place where our dignity will be preserved. We request that to give Yazidis and other threatened minorities the choice to resettle, especially the victims of human trafficking, as Germany did.”
Nadia wrote to us only this week, again not just asking us to recognise what the Yazidis are suffering as genocide, but asking the UK to undertake a programme similar to that in Germany, where 1,000 Yazidi women and girls were admitted for treatment and counselling on special two-year visas.
As I said, we also heard from Salwa Khalaf Rasho, who told us how she and other people contemplated suicide as they were being separated into different groups at 3 o’clock in the morning in a sports hall in Mosul, after a day of humiliating and molested travel by bus. They knew what was happening. She told us how, some days later after even more treatment like this, a 17-year-old girl, Gilan from Tal Afar, committed suicide. After she learned that Daesh had killed her family, she cut her wrists. In revenge, the Daesh terrorists took her dead body and threw it to the dogs.
We know from all that we have heard that this is indeed genocide. We should not be cavilling, quibbling or hesitating about this. We know that the depraved crimes of Daesh are unspeakable, but that should not mean that we should fail to call this the genocide that it truly is. According to the UN, genocide is killing members of a specific group, causing grievous harm, deliberately inflicting conditions designed to bring about the group’s destruction, preventing births within the community, or forcibly transferring its children.
We know that those who are perpetrating these crimes are doing so to exterminate and extinguish a people. We know that they mean what they are doing to be genocide, with all its bloody and awful consequences. We know that those who are suffering from these terrible crimes know that it is genocide and know that it is meant as genocide. Why should we as a Chamber hesitate to say, “We know what the word genocide means, and we know it is being committed against the Yazidi people”?

Edward Leigh: I agree with all of that, and I want to follow on directly from the speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). This is a vital motion and an important moment for the Minister. We want no more weasel words; we want him to accept this motion; we want him to accept what this motion calls for in clear and explicit terms, which is for the Government
“to make an immediate referral to the UN Security Council with a view to conferring jurisdiction upon the International Criminal Court”.
The Government’s attitude up to now has, I agree, been based on precedent, but I do not believe that precedent is enough in this case, given the horrors that are going on in the world. I would be delighted if the Minister—he can intervene now if he wants—accepted the motion on behalf of the Government. If he does, we have already won this debate, but there is absolutely no point in the Minister using his time to condemn Daesh, and mention all its appalling acts, only to say at the end of his speech, “I am very sorry, but because of legal precedent”—my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, referred to the circularity of the argument—“the Government think it is for the court to take the initiative and that it is inappropriate for the British Government to take action.”

David Burrowes: There is one person who is waiting, and who says that he is there, ready to play his full part according to the proper statute: the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. He is waiting for a referral from the Security Council so that he can investigate properly and independently and hold these people to account.

Edward Leigh: Absolutely. I see in his place the Minister, who is listening to what we are all saying. I know that he is about to deliver a strong and powerful speech. I know that he will not just condemn Daesh, but say “Yes, we have listened to the debate in the House of Commons, and we will act by making a referral to the Security Council.”
Let us look at the facts and the pure legal argument, which has nothing to do with the motion. The criteria set forth in the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide are absolutely clear. The crime is defined as acts
“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
The convention then lists five qualifying conditions:
“(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
It is clear—it is blatantly obvious—that conditions (a), (b) and (c) are in effect, and that those things are going on in the areas under Daesh’s control. It is vital to recall that even if just one of those conditions is met, the declaring of acts as genocidal is allowed. On the basis of the clear legal criteria, there is absolutely no doubt that genocide is being committed. It is therefore the duty of Her Majesty’s Government, in terms of humanity and not just in terms of legal arguments, to do their duty now, to stop prevaricating, to accept the motion, and to refer this to the Security Council.
It would be intolerable for the Government to whip against the motion and force members of the payroll to vote against their own consciences, or abstain. It would also be intolerable if the Government, by some sleight of hand, allowed the motion to be agreed to, and then said that it was not binding on them. If the motion is agreed to—I sincerely hope that the Minister will not speak against it, and that it will not be whipped against—the House of Commons will have spoken, and the Government should act.
So many powerful speeches have been made, but the most powerful of all was by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry). Why was it so moving? Why was it so powerful? Because it consisted of the explicit personal experience of someone who talked about girls of nine being raped and killed by this murderous cult.
I myself have visited the area. Of all the Christian villages that I visited, 19 have been taken over by Daesh, and only one remains. We visited the tomb of the Prophet Nahum, and we saw what he had written:
“Your people are scattered on the mountains with none to gather them”,
and
“The gates of your land are wide open to your foes.”
Enough is enough. I call on the Government to act.

Ann Clwyd: I had not intended to speak in the debate, because, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward  Leigh), the speeches have been so powerful, so poignant and so compelling that I felt that I could not add very much. For many years, however, I gathered evidence of Iraqi war crimes, and in the Chamber, week after week, I argued for the prosecution of those who had committed human rights abuses, crimes against humanity, and genocide. I am happy to support the motion today, because the case has been made over and over again.
In September 2014, I raised the case of Yazidis in the Chamber, and in the same month, I tabled an early-day motion calling for action, which stated
“That this House is extremely concerned about the genocidal campaign being waged against minorities in Iraq”
by ISIS,
“and notes with alarm the evidence recently collected by Amnesty International about”
its
“brutal campaign to obliterate all trace of non-Arabs and non-Sunni Muslims that has turned the area into blood-soaked killing fields; is shocked by the barbaric treatment of Yazidi”—
and so on.
I met many Yazidis in northern Iraq after some of the peshmerga and campaigners for human rights there had rescued some of those women by buying them on the open market. They then called for additional assistance from us. We have given humanitarian assistance, but I think that we could have done much more. Many tears have been shed about the Yazidis, but I should have liked to have seen much more practical help given to the peshmerga to assist in the liberation of those thousands of women. Thousands of Yazidi women are still being held captive; we should be aware of that, and we should be ready to give whatever assistance we can.
I want to stress again the importance of collecting evidence. The Minister has said that questions of genocide
“are determined first in the international courts and in the United Nations Security Council, but we are helping to gather evidence that could be used to hold Daesh to account.”—[Official Report, 12 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 165WH.]
I hope that he will tell us exactly how we are collecting that evidence. When I was chair of Indict, that organisation collected evidence over a seven-year period, and we were not assisted by the Government of the time. We had money from the Americans and from the Kuwaitis, but we had to do the work ourselves. When Saddam Hussein and Ali Hassan al-Majid were eventually brought to justice, that was done using some of the evidence that we had collected.
I would be grateful if the Minister would be very precise about the way in which we are assisting in collecting evidence today, because that will be extremely important. It was important in the case of the Iraqis that culminated in Saddam Hussein and Ali Hassan al-Majid being convicted of the crime of genocide. I hope that the House will support the motion today, and I hope that it will be put to a vote, because it is essential that we make it clear that this is the view of the House of Commons, and that there is no more delay.

Gerald Howarth: I am proud to be a signatory to the motion, which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), to whom tributes have rightly been paid. I would also like to pay tribute to those Members of the  other place who have made an enormous contribution to this battle. They include the noble Lord Alton, my noble Friend Lord Forsyth, Baroness Cox, Baroness Nicholson and many others. This is a big campaign across both Houses of Parliament on behalf of the British people, as the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said.
The question that we have to decide today is whether Daesh could, as it were, be convicted by us of committing genocide. The United States thinks that it could be so convicted; that is the verdict of Congress and of Secretary of State Kerry. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), also takes that view, although his view has been tempered by his reference to the need for us to present evidence to the United Nations in order for prosecutions to take place. My view is that this debate, following the one that took place in the other place on 3 February, shows that the case that Daesh has been engaged in genocide has been made.
We have heard some powerful testimonies today. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) captivated the House with her speech. The hon. Member for Ealing North also provided the house with evidence. I nearly called him my hon. Friend; we are in fact very good friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) set out the legal conditions that apply under the 1948 convention, and it cannot be the case that none of those five conditions has been met. It seems to me that they have been met in full.

Steve Pound: I have one very quick question. If this is not genocide, what is?

Gerald Howarth: That is a very good question. I have not had the privilege of meeting the people that so many hon. Members across the Floor of the House have met, but I have been extremely moved by the testimonies that have been recounted today. I do not see how any normal person listening to our debate could possibly come to any conclusion other than that this was genocide and is genocide to this day, and that Christians, Yazidis and others are being wiped out. As many hon. Members have said, those actions are intentional. They are not a by-product of some other policy. The intention is to wipe them out.
I want to be brief, so I will conclude by saying that there are three powerful reasons for taking action and why the Government should listen. First, we are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, so let us refer this matter to ourselves. That should not be too difficult. We have an important role in the UN that we should fulfil. Secondly, to the great tragedy of this nation, our fellow citizens are unfortunately involved and are steeped in blood. They are complicit in this genocide. We therefore have a locus. Thirdly, we are a Christian country. Fellow Christians are being persecuted. We cannot, as my noble Friend Lord Forsyth said in the other place,
“pass by on the other side.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 March 2016; Vol. 769, c. 2157.]
We owe it to them to take action. As we will be reminding ourselves tomorrow, our sovereign is also the supreme governor of the Church of England. This is a part of our country.
I want to finish by referring to the words of my constituent Major General Tim Cross, who said when giving evidence in the other place recently:
“There can be no doubt that genocide is being carried out on Yazidi and Christian communities—and the West/international community’s failure to recognise what is happening will be to our collective shame in years to come”.
I hope that the Government will listen to the collective words of this House and the other place and act on the behalf of the British people against the appalling genocide of our fellow Christians and so many others.

Jeremy Lefroy: In 1994, I was living a few hundred miles away from where nearly a million people were killed over the course of three months in a genocide in Rwanda. Both before the genocide and during it, the international community was too slow to act and too slow to recognise that crime against humanity. As a result, more people died than was necessary. This is another such occasion on which we have heard the evidence and need to say quite categorically that it is genocide. We should recognise that now. If not now, when?

Brendan O'Hara: I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on bringing this important debate to the Floor of the House. Judging by the contributions that we have heard this afternoon, no one can be in any doubt whatsoever that this House believes that what has happened to the Christian and Yazidi communities of northern Iraq and Syria is genocide. What Daesh has been involved in is genocide, and we should not shy away from describing it as exactly that.
There have been some excellent contributions. I do not have time to highlight every one of them, but I want to point out one or two. It was welcome that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), Chair of the International Development Committee, brought his considerable intellectual weight to the debate. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) gave a compelling case for the situation to be called a genocide. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) told the Government that under no circumstances will the matter be allowed to be brushed under the carpet, forgotten or ignored. I was also extremely moved by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry), who presented a personal and moving testimony. I heard that testimony for the first time last night, but it was equally moving to hear it again this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) drew a parallel between what happened in Germany and Europe in the 1940s and what we are currently witnessing in Syria and Iraq.
Much of the debate has been harrowing and, at times, difficult to listen to, but it is important that the voices are heard. If we do nothing else, we owe it to the victims of Daesh’s barbarism and to those who have been subject to a level of depravity that sometimes defies comprehension that we hear what they have to say and listen when they call for help.
What are these people asking of us? It is simply that the Government of the United Kingdom recognise that what has happened to them is genocide and refer their case to the UN Security Council, so that the International Criminal Court can bring those who perpetrated these awful crimes to justice. That is not too much to ask. All the evidence is there to show that what is happening in the areas of Iraq and Syria that are under Daesh control is indeed genocide. Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity often tend to be put into one basket, and sometimes there is a reluctance on the part of government to recognise that genocide is taking place, but I argue that we have not only a legal obligation, but a moral obligation to say that this is genocide. When we recognise in this way that these atrocities are being committed, we will be in esteemed company; the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, the United States Congress, US Secretary of State John Kerry and His Holiness Pope Francis have all recognised that this is genocide, and it is time we added our voice to that list—it is the very least we can do.
Genocide is a crime directed against a specific group of people because of what they are as an entity. The murders that inevitably follow are directed against people not because of who they are as individuals but simply because they are members of a group or a community. Genocide is not spontaneous—it is calculated, organised and planned. Genocide requires an intent to bring about the destruction of a group of people because of who they are or what they believe. That intent to destroy distinguishes genocide from other crimes. There can be no doubt that Daesh’s treatment of Christian and Yazidi minorities, and other religious minorities in Syria and Iraq, meets that criteria, as Daesh set out with the intent to destroy any culture or religion that differed from theirs.
In the summer of 2014, Daesh seized the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Almost the entire Christian community fled for their lives, meaning that for the first time in 1,800 years no Sunday mass was said in the city. As they fled, the Patriarch of Baghdad told the world:
“Christians have fled their villages. They are walking on foot in Iraq’s searing summer heat. They are facing catastrophe and a real genocide”.
As we heard, the overall fall in the number of Christians living in Iraq is alarming. In 2003, there were a reported 1.5 million there but today there are barely 250,000, and the situation is similar in Syria. All of this is part of a deliberate, strategic campaign of fear designed to completely annihilate minority religious groups from the middle east.
Like my friend the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, I had the fortune and privilege earlier this year of meeting a remarkable young Yazidi woman, Nadia Murad. We met because a constituent of mine, Fiona Bennett from Oban, had been up late one night with her child who would not sleep. She turned her radio on and was moved by the story she heard. It was a story of a teenage girl from northern Iraq who had been kidnapped by Daesh. Fiona was so moved by what she heard that she decided to do something about it. She raised awareness of the plight of the Yazidis, raised funds locally and contacted me, as her Member of Parliament. Together with others in this House, we organised for Nadia to  come to the United Kingdom in February. I know that Members of both Houses attended that meeting and were all incredibly moved by her first-hand testimony. It was a harrowing listen and, if I may, I would like to share a few sentences from what she told us.
Nadia said:
“We, the women and children, were taken by bus from the school…They humiliated us along the way and touched us in a shameful way. They took me to Mosul with more than 150 other Yazidi families. There were thousands of families in a building there, including children who were given away as gifts. One of the men came up to me. He wanted to take me. I looked down at the floor. I was absolutely terrified. When I looked up, I saw a huge man. He was like a monster. I cried out that I was too young…He kicked and beat me. A few minutes later, another man came up to me. I was still looking at the floor. I saw that he was a little smaller. I begged for him to take me. I was terribly afraid of the first man. The man who took me asked me to change my religion. I refused. One day, he came and asked me for my hand in what they called ‘marriage’. A few days later, this man forced me to get dressed and put on my makeup. Then, on that terrible night, he did it. He forced me to serve in his military company. He humiliated me daily. He forced me to wear clothes that barely covered my body…That night he beat me. He asked me to take my clothes off. He put me in a room with guards, who proceeded to commit their crime until I fainted.”
Tragically, as we have heard in this place, Nadia’s story is far from unique. I, too, was there when Ekhlas gave her awful testimony last night.
Genocide is a deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political or cultural group. By any measure, what Daesh has been doing to the Christian and Yazidi minorities in Iraq and Syria is genocide. I urge the Minister to listen to the voice of the people, to listen to the voice of this House, to remember the barbarity suffered by the Christians and the Yazidis, and to declare that this is a genocide. Then we can start the process of bringing the perpetrators to justice.

Diana R. Johnson: Let me start by congratulating the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing today’s debate, and on all they have done to raise this issue inside and outside the House.
I also personally thank the hon. Member for Congleton for arranging last night’s evidence session. Listening to the very harrowing testimony of Ekhlas touched all Members who were present. I also pay tribute to those Members in the other place who have been raising this issue for some time, including my noble Friend the Baroness Kennedy, who has led on the matter. There have been many excellent contributions in today’s debate from both sides of the House. It appears that the House is united in its view about what the Government should do next.
I want to start by saying something about the nature of the crimes against the Yazidis and others. As we have heard from many Members across the House, Daesh have perpetrated the most heinous of crimes against the Yazidis as well as against other ethnic and religious  minorities, including Syrian Christians and various non-Sunni people in the area of northern Iraq that they currently control.
The crimes include mass murder, torture, enslavement and unimaginable sexual violence including systematic rape, often of children. Just returning to what Ekhlas said in her testimony yesterday, the thing that will stay with me is hearing about that nine-year-old girl who was repeatedly gang-raped. When her body could not take the brutality of the assaults any more, she was murdered in the most horrific of circumstances. These are crimes that most of us will struggle to comprehend. As we have heard today, these are not crimes that are being randomly perpetrated; they are organised crimes, deliberately targeted at particular ethnic and religious groups. Amnesty International has described these acts as ethnic cleansing on an historic scale.
Many Members have referred to the first-hand testimonies that they have heard from survivors and from those who have worked directly with survivors. I pay tribute to the unbelievable bravery of all the survivors who have spoken out to alert the world to the plight of the Yazidi population. Meeting survivors has really brought it home to me that this is not some historic event; it is an ongoing atrocity affecting thousands of people. The plight of those affected is highlighted by this quote from Mirze Ezdin, who had 45 relatives—all women and children—abducted by Daesh fighters. He described to Amnesty International the daily hell that this situation has wrought. He said:
“Can you imagine these little ones in the hands of those criminals? Alina is barely three; she was abducted with her mother and her nine-month-old sister; and Rosalinda, five, was abducted with her mother and her three brothers aged eight to 12. We get news from some of them, but others are missing and we don’t know if they are alive or dead or what has happened to them.”
Mirze’s case is far from unique, which is why today’s debate is so important.
I now want to comment on the specific definition of genocide. Although there is no doubt that the crimes that Daesh have committed are horrendous, the motion asks us to consider whether they reach the threshold of genocide. Genocide is not a term we use often; it is one that we reserve for the most heinous crimes and it has a specific meaning. For a set of crimes to constitute a genocide, they must include the killing or serious harm, including sexual harm, of a group of people who have a specific ethnic, religious or racial characteristic. Labour has consistently argued that the crimes committed by Daesh appear to reach that threshold, so it is right for the UK to refer the matter to the UN Security Council for final determination by the ICC.
I am therefore pleased to say that we will be supporting the motion this evening. If this House passes the motion, as I hope we will, it will be an historic moment. I have not been able to find another instance of the House of Commons formally recognising an ongoing conflict as genocide. As we have heard, similar motions have been already passed in the US House of Representatives and the European Parliament. In March, a UN panel concluded that Daesh might have reached the threshold, and the US Government announced that they considered the actions of Daesh to constitute a genocide—this is only the second time that they have recognised an ongoing conflict as a genocide.
Now I want to turn to the question of protection for the Yazidis. The designation of genocide is important, not just because we do it rarely but because it shows intent to end the atrocities and ensure that the perpetrators face justice. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on both of these points when he responds.
First, the Opposition seek an assurance that the Government will recognise the wishes of the House if this motion is passed this afternoon and will refer the matter to the Security Council for referral to the International Criminal Court. The Minister told the House last week that the UK was assisting in the collection of evidence, and of course we welcome that, but I should be grateful if he would lay out in more detail the nature of that technical support. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) raised this point. I would also be grateful for information on the issue of forensic investigative support and how that will be provided, which was also mentioned by the Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg).
Secondly, I want to ask the Minister about the action the UK is taking to protect the Yazidis and other ethnic minority communities in Iraq. It is clear that all states have a duty to prevent genocide. Primarily, this responsibility sits with the state where the genocide is committed. Tragically, Iraq has failed to protect the Yazidis and other ethnic minority citizens, so it is right that the UK and other states should offer support to Iraq in the fight against Daesh. Will the Minister explain what specific action the UK is taking to assist in the protection of the Yazidis and to offer them security?
I also want to press the Minister on the humanitarian assistance given by the UK to the survivors of the Daesh attacks. Many Yazidis are now in refugee camps run by the Kurdistan Government in northern Iraq. These people are not classed as refugees by the UN as they are internally displaced, but we must recognise that they have been displaced from their homes and feel incredibly vulnerable. Will the Minister explain what steps the Government are taking to support these people? It is important to note that none of the people we are discussing today are eligible for relocation to the UK under the Government’s scheme, and I am extremely disappointed that the Government have consistently refused to offer sanctuary to any of these groups. There are compelling arguments for recognising the special needs of these survivors and their need for a safe space and specialist psychiatric support. This is particularly true for the women and children affected.
Already Germany has done so. A few weeks ago I met a Yazidi woman who had been enslaved, had escaped and was offered two years’ protection in Germany and—this is key—specialist psychiatric support. At Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions last week the Minister wrongly said that the German scheme required women to travel to Europe before they could access the scheme. That is not true. The German scheme takes women from the region. I hope the Minister will go away, reflect on what Germany is doing and offer the same protection to victims of what we all agree is genocide.
In conclusion, the people of this country do not walk on by when they see evil being perpetrated against fellow human beings. What is happening to the Yazidis  and others is evil. We want our country to stand up and declare solidarity with those people, and refer what is happening to the Security Council. We believe genocide is being committed, and I hope the whole House can come together this evening in support of the motion.

Tobias Ellwood: This has been an excellent debate. Time prevents me from answering all the questions, so I shall do as I have done on previous occasions and write to hon. Members in detail. Some excellent ideas and thoughts have emerged, such as the protection of mass graves and the appointment of a global envoy for religious freedom. I will be in touch on those matters.
I begin, as others have done, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing this important debate. I have listened, No. 10 has listened and the nation has listened to the will of the Chamber today. That is important. I commend the efforts of Members in all parts of the House who have worked tirelessly to ensure that the voices of those who have been murdered, persecuted or silenced by Daesh are heard.
The harrowing accounts that we have heard today of the brutal persecution of Christians, Yazidis and other religious and ethnic minorities are heartbreaking. Some of those communities lived peacefully side by side for generations before that barbaric organisation forced them to flee their homes. Daesh’s crimes go beyond the horrors of rape and murder; it has destroyed a generations-old culture. The Government have repeatedly made clear our utter condemnation of the unspeakable crimes that Daesh commits against Christians, Yazidis and other communities, including Muslims, who still account for the majority of victims. We are working tirelessly to defeat Daesh and put an end to that violence.
This is not the first time that I have commented on this matter; it is the third time. I repeat what I said in Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions last week. I believe that genocide has taken place, but as the Prime Minister has said, genocide is a matter of legal rather than political opinion. We as the Government are not the prosecutor, the judge or the jury. Such matters are for the UN Security Council. However, we have a place—

Jim Shannon: rose—

Tobias Ellwood: I will not give way.
We have a place on the UN Security Council. That is important. Any referral to the International Criminal Court by the UN Security Council will be possible only with a united Council and ideally with the co-operation of countries in which alleged crimes have been committed. However, I remind the House that when efforts were made to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC in 2014, that was vetoed by Russia and China. We expect that any Security Council resolution seeking to refer the situation in Iraq or Syria to the ICC against those countries could very well be blocked again, but further discussions are taking place. We are now in a different place from where we were in 2014.

Edward Leigh: Will the Minister give way?

Tobias Ellwood: I will not give way.
Although a UN Security Council referral to the International Criminal Court is one option, there are other potential options for bringing Daesh to justice. In the meantime, we are supporting the gathering and preservation of evidence that could in future be used in a court to hold Daesh to account. I believe there is a very strong case to be answered, but we must clarify what we mean by genocide. As other hon. Members have mentioned, this refers to acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, religious or racial group. However, we must also consider crimes against humanity, which refer to acts committed as part of a widespread, systematic attack directed against any civilian population. That includes murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, sexual slavery and other forms of sexual violence. Furthermore, war crimes refer to grave breaches of the Geneva conventions. It may transpire that all three cases apply in this instance.
That is why we will do everything we can to help gather evidence that could be used by the judicial bodies, who are the appropriate people to judge these matters, to make a judgment. It is vital that that is done now, before evidence is lost or destroyed. Ultimately, this is a question for the courts to decide; it is not for Governments to be the prosecutor, judge or jury. The Prime Minister also said:
“Not only are the courts best placed to judge criminal matters but their impartiality also ensures the protection of the UK Government from the politicisation and controversies that often attach themselves to the question of genocide.”
It is essential that these decisions are based on credible judicial process, but that does not mean that we wash our hands of this issue. Right now, our priority is to prevent atrocities from taking place, and that is why we are playing a leading role in the global coalition against Daesh. I make it clear that, in the long term, we must hold Daesh to account for the atrocities it commits. The evidence that we are helping to gather now will ensure that the perpetrators of these crimes always know that the threat of prosecution is hanging over them.
We should make no mistake: British and international justice have a long reach and a long memory. We will track down those who commit these acts and hold them to account, no matter how long it takes. It took over a decade to track down Radovan Karadzic, but last month he was finally convicted and held to account for his crimes.
The UK is taking a lead on the international response to this issue. In September 2014, we co-sponsored the UN Human Rights Council resolution mandating investigation of Daesh abuses in Iraq. Working with international partners, we are seeking ways to support the gathering of crucial evidence that can be used by the courts to hold Daesh to account.
We must ensure that Daesh is held to account for its barbaric crimes against the majorities and minorities involved—Shi’a and Sunni Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, Kurds and other groups. Ultimately, the only way to put an end to these crimes and to liberate the people of Iraq and Syria is to defeat Daesh. We must continue to expose it for what it is: a failing organisation that is losing territory, struggling to pay its fighters and betraying Islam in all it stands for.
On that note, as I said last week, if we look at the profile of any suicide bomber, from Bali to Sousse, we see that they are sold martyrdom by extremists as a fast track to paradise. People who have scant knowledge of the Koran are promised a ticket to heaven with little, if any, understanding of or service to God. If we are to defeat extremism and stem the churn of vulnerable recruits, we must all emphasise the importance of the duty to God in this life as well as the next. Indeed, the Koran forbids suicide.
As has been said or implied in the House today, the UK has the aspiration and means to play a significant role in world affairs. Our historical links, now forged into bilateral and regional interests, mean that we are expected not just to take an interest, but to show leadership on the world stage. We are seen as fair, knowledgeable and trustworthy. We are playing a leading role in defeating Daesh on the battlefield and in defeating its ideology. We will hold Daesh to account in the courts for its terrible crimes, no matter how long it takes.

Fiona Bruce: At least 18 Back-Bench Members have spoken in this debate, and all of them, without exception, have not only supported the motion but made deeply moving and powerful speeches. We have today heard irrefutable evidence of genocide by Daesh in Iraq and Syria. The case has been made.
We have heard no good grounds for this issue not to be referred to the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court. The fact that other members of the UN Security Council may veto a referral is no reason for our country not to show a lead. The fact that Russia and China vetoed a 2014 referral—which related to general action in Syria, not to the specific point of genocide by Daesh—should not prevent this country from making a referral.
Several Members have called for a vote. We should have one. We have heard many reasons why this matter should be referred to the UN Security Council. We owe it to the victims to seek justice for those who suffer, to show an international lead, to be a voice for the voiceless and to hold the perpetrators to account.
This motion is simple: it asks the Members of this Parliament to recognise the genocide that is taking place for what it is. Can anyone who has listened to this debate deny that? If there ever was a vote on a matter of conscience, surely this is one. It is a matter of life and death. If there ever was a vote that should be a wholly free vote for Members of this place, surely this is one. Payroll Members should not be asked to abstain. In spite of the fact that the number of Members voting will not be as it should be, I trust that the Government will accept the will of this House and take the action stipulated by the motion, which I hope will receive overwhelming support from Members across this House.
Question put.

Resolved,
That this House believes that Christians, Yazidis, and other ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria are suffering genocide at the hands of Daesh; and calls on the Government to make an immediate referral to the UN Security Council with a view to conferring jurisdiction upon the International Criminal Court so that perpetrators can be brought to justice.

RECORD COPIES OF ACTS

James Gray: I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with the conclusion of the House of Commons Administration Committee’s First Report of Session 2015-16; welcomes the view expressed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General that government funds would be available to pay for the continued use of vellum for printing Acts of Parliament; is unwilling to amend or resile from the terms of the Resolutions agreed by both Houses on 12 February 1849; and accordingly instructs the Clerk of the House to convey to the Clerk of the Parliaments that the House of Commons has withheld its consent to the use of archival paper rather than vellum for the printing of record copies of public Acts of Parliament.
The motion is in my name and those of 43 colleagues from both sides of the House. If it is passed, it will send a strong message to the other place—the House of Lords—that its unilateral decision to end the ancient practice of using vellum to record Acts of Parliament is not accepted by this House. If that occurs, I very much hope that the other House will listen carefully to the views of this place. We have moved from a matter of grave significance to the world and to humanity—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. It is most discourteous of Members to gather at the end of the Chamber when someone is trying to make an important speech.

James Gray: I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not certain whether my speech can be described as important, but I am nevertheless grateful to you for your flattering remark.
This debate is of less importance than the previous one, and I make no complaint about losing some time to that debate, which was about something of very grave concern to the world. None the less, this matter is important in terms of symbolism and for a number of other reasons, which I will return to in a moment. I feel no shame in bringing forward this matter.
I intend to be reasonably brief, not least because the main arguments in favour of saving vellum for the future have been laid out this week in an outstandingly good article in that outstandingly good magazine, The House. Unfortunately, because that magazine is printed on paper, those arguments will disappear within a matter of a year or two. If it were printed on vellum, they would still be in existence some 5,000 years from now. It is therefore important that I advance the arguments in a way that future generations will be able to remember.
I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who has fought this battle for a very long time, and her Labour colleagues who, in 1999—the last time this matter was raised—were resolute in defeating the House of Lords. I also pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). As a member of the Government, he is probably unable to speak in the debate, but I know his support for William Cowley and sons in his constituency, the last remaining vellum manufacturer, is second to none. I believe that his  neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), is hoping to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak on the company’s behalf.
I would be the first to accept there are a great many more important matters that we should discuss in this place. I would not have wished to discuss the use of vellum were it not for the fact that the House of Lords unilaterally, without consulting us, decided to discontinue it. All I am seeking to do in the debate is to assert our right as the House of Commons to have at least a say in the matter. If we have a Division later and the motion is defeated—if the House of Commons decides to agree with their lordships to abolish the use of vellum—so be it. However, it is right that Members should have a say about how our laws are recorded for future generations, as we did in 1999, 1849 and throughout the generations.

David Amess: My hon. Friend might not be aware of this, but I, as a fellow member of the Administration Committee, have changed my view on this matter, and I now very much agree with him because I believe that this change would be a false economy. We must hang on to this tradition and cherish it.

James Gray: It takes a big politician to say that they have changed their mind, and my hon. Friend is indeed a big politician. I pay tribute to him for being ready to change his mind.
Three broad arguments are advanced by those who would abolish the use of vellum, each of which can be easily dealt with. The first and main argument is the cost of using vellum to record our Acts of Parliament. It is alleged that the cost of printing Acts on vellum comes to £103,000 per year, whereas doing so on paper would cost £30,000 per year. The House of Lords therefore says that the saving would be in the order of £70,000 per year. However, I have been thorough in my research, and I have been in touch with the Archives and Records Association of the UK and Ireland. Its chief executive, Mr John Chambers, who is the authority on these matters, tells me that the cost of printing on vellum is identical to that of printing on paper. The cost of printing the laws of this land is approximately £56,000 per annum and the cost of vellum is a relatively small amount on top of that. In other words, the saving by changing to paper would be, at best, perhaps £10,000 or £20,000 a year.
William Cowley and sons, the last vellum manufacturers and printers, tell me that the most they have ever been paid in a year was £47,000, and that was a year when we made far too many laws in this place, including too many long ones, so it cost more to print them. If we keep ourselves under control, pass fewer laws and keep them short, the amount that we pay to William Cowley and sons will be even less than that £47,000.

Michael Ellis: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the laws of the land that are printed on vellum? Such things as the Torah scrolls that are used by members of the Jewish community are printed on vellum. If the sole provider of vellum in this country were forced to close because of the House of Lords stopping our use of vellum, that might inconvenience other people and force them to  source their items from outside this country—assuming that they are not already doing so, which they might well be.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good and important point to which I will return in a moment.
We think that the figures produced by the House of Lords are pretty bogus and that the difference in cost, if there is one, will be marginal. In any event, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has announced that if there are any extra costs to be borne, Her Majesty’s Government, not this place, will bear them, which I welcome. I was also delighted that the shadow Chancellor indicated his support for the motion in discussions with me. He has authorised me to say that a Labour Government would also seek to fund the cost of vellum.

Melanie Onn: In addition to the cost of vellum, there is the matter of the printing machinery, which is due to be replaced. Does the hon. Gentleman have an idea of the cost of the contract that would be required and the length of time the contract would need to be in existence to recoup that expenditure?

James Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising an extremely important point. She is quite right that if some complicated piece of machinery were required at great cost, meaning that it would take us years and years to pay that off, it would be important to take that into consideration. However, the fact of the matter is that any corner shop—any printer in the land—can print on vellum. I have been informed by printers—there are two in my constituency who would be delighted to do it—that the £56,000 that is currently spent is a great deal too much, and that they would do it for significantly less.

Melanie Onn: rose—

James Gray: The hon. Lady will have a chance to make her points later. I am interested that she is apparently opposed to the motion.
The difference in cost will be pretty marginal, so let us move on to the substance of the matter. If we were to change to paper, I would be very surprised if the cost was as low as the House of Lords has indicated. The county of Hereford has announced this week that it has just opened a new archive centre at a cost of £11.5 million. Paper, of course, requires all sorts of special care over the years, whereas vellum, as can be demonstrated by a glance at the records in the Victoria Tower, survives for generations—hundreds of years—without any care whatsoever. It can be put in a cupboard and it will be as good as when it went in.

Rebecca Harris: When I last had a proper job, I worked in local history publishing. We published John Morris’s translation of the Domesday Book and relied heavily on other archives, such as materials in the parish chest, that were written on vellum. I will not ask my hon. Friend to comment on whether I would be much the poorer had those things been written not on vellum but on paper, and it had  disintegrated, but does he agree that we would be much poorer as a nation in our understanding of our history had such things been written on paper?

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Were I a nimble enough speaker, I would leap from the place where I am in my speech to the point to which she refers. However, I will talk in a moment about the things we have today because they were made of vellum but which we would not have if they had been made of paper.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend mentioned the debate in 1999, when Mr Brian White raised the issue, as a Milton Keynes Member, because the factory would have had to close. I made the point in that debate that down the other end of the building, there was an Act of Parliament dated 1497 that was on view to the public. It was not a facsimile or a replica; it was an Act of Parliament—it bore the sovereign’s signature and it was legible. We know that vellum lasts 500 years, but we do not know that any other material will last 500 years.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely strong point.
The third argument that is sometimes advanced by those who are opposed to vellum is that this is some sort of animal rights or animal welfare matter because of the use of calfskins in making vellum. The answer to that point is that the calfskins are picked up from the abattoir. The calves are killed for the purpose of being eaten, so there is absolutely no animal welfare consideration of any kind at all. Indeed, we could argue that reusing the calfskins is a much more environmentally friendly approach.
In contrast to those three—rather weak, in my view—arguments in favour of abolishing vellum, there are three vastly stronger reasons for keeping it. First, vellum has for centuries been used for documents of significance and importance. University graduation certificates have always been on vellum, as have certificates of long service and military commissions. Every law in every Commonwealth Parliament throughout the world is on vellum. In America, West Point graduates get vellums. Knighthoods are on vellum, as are peerages. Any decent, important document that we have uses vellum. When we give a certificate to our Lord Mayor for his long service, it is always on vellum. Why should we be uniquely downgrading the laws of the land and saying that they are not important enough to be on vellum, despite the fact that our university graduation certificates are?
Secondly, vellum is hugely more durable than paper—there is no question about that at all. It cannot be crushed and it cannot be torn up. Of course, we are not allowed to use visual aids in this Chamber, Mr Speaker—I would not dream of doing such a thing—but I can show that it is true that vellum cannot be crushed or squashed, because it comes out just as it was before its crushing. It cannot be torn or burned, and it is not affected by water. It is durable in a very real sense.
As some of my hon. Friends have mentioned, we have good examples of how vellum has survived without any maintenance at all. It lasts for up to 5,000 years; by comparison, the maximum that can be achieved for the highest quality archival paper is 200 or 300 years.

Robert Jenrick: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be interested to hear the opinion of a former colleague of mine, Mrs Meg Ford, who is the head of books and manuscripts at Christie’s and one of the world’s foremost experts in this field. She advises the great collectors who spend millions of pounds purchasing books and manuscripts. She emailed me to say:
“Vellum surely is the strongest, most durable writing material. Maybe there is some newly invented material lined with graphene, but if the choice is between even the best paper and vellum, vellum will win.”

James Gray: My hon. Friend speaks with passion from a position of great expertise, and he is absolutely right. When I was going through my personal archives recently, I was interested to come across my grandfather’s certificate as a graduate of Edinburgh University. I have it here—this is not an aide-mémoire, Mr Speaker. He graduated in engineering in 1903, and his certificate is absolutely as it was when it was first printed. It has simply been sat in a cupboard in my family’s house for 120 years, and it is as good as new.

Tim Loughton: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the great campaign he has run on this issue. Is it not slightly ironic that the year after we celebrated the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta—a document that is essential to our constitution and was written on vellum—their lordships are considering doing away with vellum? Is he aware that while the laws in the Republic of Ireland are written on vellum, I am not aware of any plans to scrap that tradition there?

James Gray: They have plenty of cows in Ireland, as we do in this country, and my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Had Magna Carta been written on paper, it would have been lost by around 1465, before the birth of Henry VIII—it would not have survived to his times. Let us think of other great documents such as the Dead Sea scrolls, the Lindesfarne gospels and the Domesday Book—all were written on vellum. The Codex Sinaiticus in the British Library was commissioned by the Emperor Constantine in 350 AD. We can look at it today and turn its pages; it is exactly as it was when it was written, and it is as clear as anything. Can one imagine a piece of paper from 350 AD surviving? The oldest complete bound book in Europe, the St John’s Gospel, was put into the coffin of St Cuthbert in the year 687 in Durham cathedral, and it can still be read today as clearly as when it was written because it is on vellum. The use of vellum guarantees that no matter what happens in the future—war, floods, riots or anything else—Acts of Parliament will be preserved for all time.
The third reason why I think it vital to maintain vellum is that William Cowley and sons in Milton Keynes, the last remaining manufacturers of vellum, supply services to the British Library, the Bodleian and records offices up and down the land. If the parliamentary contract is withdrawn, there is at least a chance that the firm’s six employees would no longer be there, meaning that everyone who requires vellum services would have to go to America, because there are no other vellum manufacturers in Europe.
Why on earth, for the sake of some £20,000 a year, if that, should we be considering doing away with a craft of this kind? Why would we want to close down an ancient business? Why should we be considering changing  a 1,000-year tradition of this place? Why should we downgrade Acts in the way that is suggested? To me, it is beyond understanding. If Members care for the traditions of this place, if they care for crafts and if they care for Acts of Parliament, they will join me in the Aye Lobby today.

John Bercow: Order. Many Members wish to participate in the debate, so there will have to be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which will be open to review, depending on progress. We must start with five minutes with the intention of not exceeding that limit.

Sharon Hodgson: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on securing this afternoon’s debate, and on spearheading the opportunity for this House to voice its concerns about the decision taken by the House of Lords and the House of Commons Administration Committee to end the centuries-old practice of printing Acts of Parliament on vellum.
My involvement came about after the issue was brought to my attention by Patricia Lovett—calligrapher, illuminator, vellum-user, and vice-chair of the Heritage Crafts Association. She was concerned about the impact on an important heritage craft in this country. It was our shared hope to see this decision reversed when the matter was first considered back in October, when the Administration Committee recommended that the Commons agree to the renewed request by the Chairman of Committees in the Lords that we print record copies of public Acts not on vellum, but on archival paper. This House, however, was never consulted on this, and neither was the sector on which the change would have the greatest impact—nor indeed were the wider public, who might have an interest in the future of this heritage craft.
It was with great dismay that, two months ago, we were informed that the printers had been given a 30-day notice to cease printing on vellum, with no public announcement or dissemination of this decision to parliamentarians; I found out from Patricia Lovett, as I said. That led to my point of order on 9 February, in which I raised my concerns about this shady back-room deal between the Commons authorities and those in the Lords.
After the points of order raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire and me, the Minister for the Cabinet Office intervened with the welcome news that the money necessary to continue printing on vellum would be found from Government coffers. Although I genuinely thank the Minister for his support for our campaign, I really think that printing, preserving and protecting our own archival history through our own budgets is a matter for Parliament.

Matthew Hancock: Let me make it clear at this stage of the debate that this is very much a matter for the House. Although we on the Treasury Bench offer our support, it remains a matter for the House.

Sharon Hodgson: That saving grace is very welcome.
Many of us from different parties might be described as strange bedfellows in this debate, but we have come together on this issue because we agree that the continued use of vellum is part of recognising our heritage and traditions. The Palace of Westminster is to undergo a potential £7 billion refurbishment to conserve this place for future generations to use, visit and admire; how can anyone argue for a saving that is so small by comparison, without considering what we would lose?
Our most important documents have been printed or written on vellum, from the Magna Carta to the Domesday Book and a piece of important north-east English history, the Lindisfarne gospels. All these historical manuscripts have been preserved for posterity because they were printed on vellum. They have lasted through the ages due to vellum’s durable qualities, which have ensured that future generations can appreciate and respect our shared history. Surely the legislation that we make here is worthy of this small additional cost. These are the laws of our land, and they should have the status and respect that is implied when they are printed on vellum. As Paul Wright from William Cowley said on the Jeremy Vine show last year, “If it is precious, put it on vellum.”
The crux of my concern about the change is the debate about the costs of printing on vellum. Both the Administration Committee and the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords have claimed that ending the use of vellum would save Parliament, and the taxpayer, an average of £80,000 per year, but that figure has been disputed. William Cowley has said that, according to its books, the sale of vellum to Parliament is worth £47,000 per year. My question is: where does the proposed saving of £33,000 come from?
There is also concern about the use of archival paper. As we have heard, vellum manuscripts have lasted for centuries, and archival paper has not been proved to have that kind of longevity. There is talk of 250 years and of 500 years, but it must be borne in mind that those are estimates, not facts. It is a fact, however, that vellum lasts longer, and I therefore cannot support a switch to the inferior medium of archival paper.
Parliament is an important beacon of our history and heritage, and the fact that Members of either House can so easily dismiss a centuries-old practice is deeply worrying. We should remember that William Cowley is our last remaining vellum maker here in the UK. If it were to lose its contract with Parliament, that could be detrimental to the future of this heritage craft, and those who wished to buy vellum would have to look to other countries. It would not be just our medals that we would be buying from France. That is why I hope that today we can finally save vellum for good.

Paul Beresford: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on initiating the debate. It has forced me to do an awful lot of homework and get hold of some real facts and figures, so that I can pass them on to the House as they have been presented to me.
Vellum has been used to record Acts of Parliament for only about 170 years. The oldest surviving parliamentary records are on parchment, which is a very similar material.  The oldest surviving archival paper records date back to 1510, which is just 13 years short of the date of the oldest parchment record. Those paper records are the manuscript journals of the House of Lords. It appears to me, on the basis of viewing and research, that records kept on vellum and those kept on archival paper in the same environment last equally well.

James Gray: My hon. Friend is trying to make a distinction between vellum and parchment, but they are, of course, the same thing. The “Oxford English Dictionary” defines vellum as fine parchment.

Paul Beresford: I am obviously talking too quickly, because, in effect, that is what I said: they are much the same.

James Gray: I beg my hon. Friend’s pardon.

Paul Beresford: Before 1849, all Acts were written out by hand on rolls of parchment, in exquisite handwriting; it is really worth seeing. The motion refers to a resolution of both Houses dated 12 February 1849. At the core of that resolution was a proposed move from beautiful handwritten copies to the then cutting-edge innovation of printing. Perhaps my hon. Friend wishes that we could return to handwritten copies on vellum, as they do look beautiful. In 1999, the House of Lords announced that it wished to cease printing public Acts on vellum, having ceased to print private Acts on it in 1956. Two copies of each Act of Parliament are printed on vellum. One is kept in the Parliamentary Archives, and the other is sent to the National Archives.
The amount of money that would be saved by a move from vellum to archival paper has been disputed, but in the grand picture of public expenditure, it is not enormously significant. It is worth observing that we expect the saving to be more than the salary of a single Member of Parliament, which many of us probably consider not to be that great anyway. The National Archives has helpfully informed Parliament that it does not require vellum, and as it is part of the Minister’s departmental portfolio, I must take notice of that.
Vellum is an extremely expensive material, requiring an expensive and specialised form of printing. The cost of printing the Acts of 2014-15 on vellum—I asked about this specifically, in order to try to get it right—was approximately £107,000. The cost of using even the most expensive parchment-style paper would have been £8,000, a reduction of 92%. Unfortunately, however, the challenges associated with printing on vellum do not stop there.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), there are precisely two surviving printing machines that print double-sided on vellum to the standard that is required—note: to the standard that is required. One is in a museum, and the other is owned or utilised by the contract printer, but to put it colloquially, it is on its last legs and is probably being held together by Sellotape. Therefore, if the decision were made to continue to print public Acts on vellum, my opposite number in the House of Lords would have to provide a business case for a contract with the firm that was prepared to construct a new printer. The cost of that would leave Parliament contracted to a single supplier, which would negate the normal practice of competitive tendering.

Michael Ellis: If we put that one supplier out of business, it is not just parliamentary Acts that will be affected. I understand from the Office of the Chief Rabbi that the Torahs used in this country are not in fact made here, but if that one supplier were to close down because Parliament stopped using it, Torahs and many other non-parliamentary items would not be able to be made here, and the work would have to be exported elsewhere.

Paul Beresford: I have not had words with the Chief Rabbi, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we have made inquiries and we are just one of the contracts for this particular contractor. If we stopped using him, his profits would go down but he would not close.
During these complex discussions, the Minister for the Cabinet Office came along with his chequebook. I was surprised, as someone who has enthusiastically endorsed his admirable policies on cutting out waste, reducing red tape and improving Government efficiency. His Department believes that we should be “digital by default”, but that is a little different from what he is now talking about. A similar approach has been taken by the House; we also have everything digitised.
However, it is a legal requirement that quality prints of the original Acts be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments in the House of Lords—the legal authority. Moreover, most modern Acts of Parliament are brought into force by statutory instruments at some point after receiving Royal Assent, and no statutory instruments are printed on vellum. The relevant information is available digitally.
I have huge respect for the Minister’s campaign, as he is aware. I must point out that we digitally store the Acts, and that he has ensured that if anything were to happen to the paper or vellum archive, the Acts could be reprinted.

James Gray: My hon. Friend talks about the cloud. How confident is he that the cloud will be here in 5,000 years, when vellum most certainly will be?

Paul Beresford: I will not be here in 5,000 years; my teeth will have gone long before that. However, my hon. Friend’s question ignores the fact that there will be progress. I doubt that we will be storing anything in the form that we do now, be it on vellum, on paper or digitally. There will be another way.
I was encouraged by the Minister’s offer to cover the cost of printing on vellum. For a moment, I thought he was offering a blank cheque to pay for all the printing in the House of Commons, because it would be logical to extend the offer in that way. I am not particularly well educated on the constitution, however, and it was pointed out to me forcefully that it would be inappropriate for the Government to play that kind of role in the business of Parliament. Of course, the Minister and the Cabinet Office could choose to fund the purchase of the material, the equipment and the managing of the contract, as well as the long-term storage, if they wished to produce their own copies on vellum from the digital records. Unfortunately, the record of Acts produced by Parliament, on whatever medium is chosen, are the legal authority. The Minister has been gracious in his benevolent offer, but it is not appropriate.
The printing of Acts over many years has changed as time and technology have progressed. We have moved from parchment to vellum to paper, and from handwriting to printing, all of which now have a digital back-up. The only recent backward step that I can think of has been the Ed stone, but that was just an unfortunate incident. I conclude simply by noting that, of the two Houses, it is the one that we would expect to make a stand purely on tradition that is suggesting to the House of Commons that we should progress.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on securing this debate and on ensuring that it has been held after the previous debate was postponed. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for doing so much to raise the issue’s profile.

Steve Pound: On the subject of paying tribute, we should formally acknowledge the extremely important role played by Brian White, MP for North East Milton Keynes from 1997 to 2005, who took us through this whole business in immense detail and won the argument and the vote that kept vellum.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: It is important that we acknowledge Brian White. Indeed, I will go on to say something about the industry in his constituency that he protected.
It is perhaps because I have a truly magnificent cathedral in my constituency that is over 1,000 years old that I feel strongly that tradition is important and that we should continue to record Acts of Parliament on vellum. The existence of so many beautiful old buildings in Durham has reinforced my belief that we should treasure our heritage and look after it for future generations, something which this country has unfortunately not always been good at. For example, beautiful Victorian terraces have been ripped down, apparently in the name of progress, for new blocks of flats that are demolished just years later because of poor construction and, most critically of all, their not being fit for purpose. We run the risk of doing something similar with vellum.
Our lack of respect for heritage is equally apparent in other areas. For example, we have lost many of our folk songs, dances, music, poetry and other aspects of our culture, because we have not kept them alive by using them. Were it not for champions of their causes, we would have lost many others altogether. We can be a champion for vellum today.

Rebecca Harris: Both Houses of Parliament will soon enjoy the ceremony and tradition of the Queen’s Speech. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would not be a favourable idea to save money by getting the Queen to make a webcast from her sitting room?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The hon. Lady makes her point extremely well.
When it is proposed that vellum must be discontinued because there is a cheaper alternative, I start from a perspective of great scepticism. Why should we change the practice when it has served us so well for centuries?  The issue is close to my heart because of the Lindisfarne Gospels. Everyone here will know their relevance to the north-east and to my Durham constituency. Produced in around 700, the gospels were written and painted on vellum, without which the gospels simply would not be with us today. Not just old relics, they are important living texts for our understanding of the culture and heritage of the north-east and elsewhere. When last on display in Durham a few years ago, over 100,000 people viewed them in just three months, most of them paying to do so.
Vellum is needed in the restoration of our ancient texts and for the recording of a range of important documents not only in the UK, but abroad. I hope that this House and the other place will take steps to protect the industry that supports that restoration, not put its future viability at risk by discontinuing the use of vellum. I pay tribute to the former Member of Parliament for North East Milton Keynes and the current Members of Parliament for Milton Keynes for trying to support and keep the industry alive.
I rarely agree with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, but I did when he told The Daily Telegraph:
“Recording our laws on vellum is a millennium long tradition, and surprisingly cost effective. While the world around us constantly changes, we should safeguard some of our great traditions and not let the use of vellum die out.”
I strongly agree with him on that and I hope that in this House today we can send a strong message to their lordships that they should think again about this decision.
I am not against modernisation—indeed, I think the House of Lords could do with some of it—but we need to get the balance right. Things do have to change, but we also need to preserve what is important about our past. Acts of Parliament fall into that category, and we should continue to use vellum. I hope that we all vote in support of that today.

Chris Skidmore: I should declare an interest, not only as a part-time historian who spent a large part of his youth burrowed away in the National Archives researching Tudor history, but as the chair of the all-party group on archives and history. The group has more than 100 members in both Houses, and has been fortunate to have as its secretariat the Archives and Records Association of the UK and Ireland, the leading professional body for archivists, record managers and conservators in these islands. The ARA has about 2,500 paid-up members, who have naturally raised concerns over the possible change in the recording of Acts of Parliament from vellum to archival paper, which I wish to reflect in my speech.
There has been a lot of debate on this issue and strong feelings have, naturally, been expressed. That is entirely understandable, as vellum, and parchment, its sheepskin cousin, is at the core of our national heritage. Vellum has been used to record some of the most important events in the history of these islands, not just Acts of Parliament. It is still actively used by our conservation community to repair and extend the life of our existing ancient manuscripts. Vellum is also a highly practical material. It is durable, accessible and much more resistant to fire and water than any kind of paper.  It is also an alkaline material. Paper is more fragile, and it is acidic and deteriorates much more quickly over time.

Michael Ellis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the even the highest quality archival paper is going to last only about 300 years, and even then it would cost a lot to maintain in the right humid conditions, whereas vellum can be kept just about anywhere on a shelf and will last 5,000 years?

Chris Skidmore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: with vellum, we know it will last. It has already stood the test of time, as any historian or archivist will verify, through its continued existence over centuries. With paper, we can only guess how long a printed version will last; it depends on precisely what paper is used, what ink is used and how the resulting document is stored.

Paul Beresford: I had better repeat what I said earlier. In this House we have been recording on parchment equivalent since 1497 and on paper from 13 years later. Having looked at the paper, the parchment and the vellum, I can say that they look the same.

Chris Skidmore: indicated dissent.

Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is shaking his head, but I suggest he goes and looks.

Chris Skidmore: I want to talk from my own professional experience as a historian. Someone who goes to the National Archives and tries to order up SP1—the state papers of Henry VIII—will find that they are not allowed to do so. They will only be able to look at those on microfilm, because the paper is so fragile that it will crumble if touched. I have opened boxes and been amazed at how many documents have still not been looked at, but I know that paper from the 15th and 16th centuries is so fragile that it would crumble to the touch, and often those documents have to be returned unopened. That is not the case with vellum. People can order up stuff that is still in its original leather bag. It will be filthy but it remains there and people can study it, using ultraviolet light. That is the contrast I have seen as a historian. What if in 500 or 1,000 years’ time future generations of historians have this problem? It is simply not true to equate paper and vellum.
Europe’s leading expert on the subject, Dr Henk Porck of the Netherlands national library, has gone on record as saying that current ageing tests for paper
“cannot be reliably predicted by means of the present artificial ageing tests.”
When it comes to printing our country’s laws, arguably our most important documents, we need to ensure that we have a clear assurance that the materials they are printed on will last the test of centuries, as vellum has. Paper-printed Acts of Parliament may last a long time—I do agree that they last a significant amount of time—but it is not long enough, and we need all the details of what is being proposed.
There has also been significant debate about the cost of using vellum and the prospective savings from printing future Acts of Parliament on paper. On 19 January, in a letter to the Archives and Records Association, Lord Laming, the Chairman of Committees, explained  that the cost of printing Acts of Parliament is about £103,000 a year, yet we know, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) has said, that the only remaining UK firm involved in this, William Cowley Ltd in Milton Keynes, receives a maximum of £47,000 a year from selling vellum to Parliament. That means that associated costs are around £56,000 a year. Lord Laming stated in his letter to the ARA that the expected cost of printing future Acts on paper, including the paper itself, is around £20,000 a year, so there is still a discrepancy between £20,000 and £30,000. It would be good to know precisely what the saving is meant to be.
We know from specialists in the sector, including the ARA, that the cost of printing on vellum and paper should be roughly the same. It has been confirmed to the ARA by specialist printers, including the Gregynog Press and the Westerham Press, that current costs of printing on vellum could be achieved for much less. People who work with vellum say that printing techniques have come a long way in recent years. They add that letterpress, litho and screen-printing are all used successfully for vellum and parchment, and they should know. Yet the Chairman of Committees has said:
“Vellum requires a specialist and time-consuming printing process, and uses equipment which is not used for any other purpose. It is firmly expected to be significantly cheaper to print on quality archival paper.”
We have a difference of opinion here. First, will the Chairman of Committees set out the proactive efforts that he and previous incumbents have made to consult members of the heritage community on printing as it relates to vellum? Secondly, will he explain how often the contract for printing Acts of Parliament on vellum has been put out to tender, and—if known—what bids came in? Thirdly, will he publish the full cost-benefit assessment that he and his colleagues have carried out on this matter? We need this in order to give the issue proper scrutiny in this place, and for wider public transparency.
We all want to see value for money, but we should also be aware of false economies. Parliament should not subsidise vellum manufacture, but we should be mindful of the future cost of archival facilities, given the fragility of paper and the potential risk of damage to such important documents. We should also consider the impact on our conservation sector if the current Cowley contract is stopped.
Vellum, like sheepskin parchment, has played a key part at key points in the history of these islands in recording our most important events. Its continuous use over centuries should cause all Members to pause in sober reflection on the fact that we, as legislators, are the inheritors not just of a tradition of preserving our laws on vellum, but of a seamless legal tradition that goes back centuries. George Macaulay Trevelyan once wrote:
“The poetry of history lies in the quasi-miraculous fact that once, on this earth, once, on this familiar spot of ground, walked other men and women, as actual as we are to-day, thinking their own thoughts, swayed by their own passions, but now all gone, one generation vanishing after another, gone as utterly as we shall shortly be gone as ghost at cock crow.”
We, too, will be gone. We will be replaced by new generations of Members, and become footnotes to the past. If we are to govern in prose, we should at least allow ourselves, in our responsibilities to generations to come, to be reminded that the poetry of history matters.

Paul Flynn: People watching this debate from outside will be convinced that this House is completely out of touch. We are talking about a vanity project. We could save £100,000 if we retain Acts of Parliament digitally. We do not need this project. The Paymaster General is very generous with taxpayers’ money and he has offered to pay that money. He was equally generous last year when he gave £3 million to Kids Company three days before it went bankrupt. That was another vanity project that was run by Mrs Batmanghelidjh, who was the poster girl of the big society. So, there is money for vellum. There was also money to save an organisation that did great harm to the people with whom it dealt and that was run by a confidence trickster, but it had the imprimatur of the big society—the Government stunt at the time.
Those outside can look at the decisions that we took on 2 March and at the way we have treated people in dire financial distress. Most of the Members who have spoken today on this matter voted in favour of taking £30 a week from the meagre budgets of disabled people.

Victoria Atkins: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that we are talking about vellum and record copies of Acts?

Paul Flynn: We are talking about the priorities of this Chamber. Those outside will ask what on earth we are talking about, when we could not pay that money to the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign pensioners—the 2.7 million of them who have paid into their pensions and are being cheated. There is no money for that, but we save the vellum. What are we doing about the 500,000 overseas pensioners whose pensions are frozen? They paid all their dues. There is no money to give them justice, but there is money for the vellum. I think that people outside will certainly see that, and that we have one law that applies to ourselves—to our own vanities, our own history. It is history; there is no modern justification for using vellum now. This is part of the traditions of this place that should have been dumped along with top hats and quill pens.
Robin Cook tried to do it—it was an obvious saving. Remember the pressure we put on outside bodies to save money and make efficiencies. When we have a very sensible proposal from the House of Lords for an efficiency that will save £100,000, we turn it down because of sentimental, confused thinking, as though we were still living in past ages. It has no relevance for the future whatsoever.

Michael Ellis: I think that I have heard the hon. Gentleman refer in the past to the Chartist movement and to other historical aspects of this country. Vellum does not only record positive things. Vellum in society—history—records positive and negative things. If he hates most of the history of this country—perhaps he does not—does he not want to record that history, whatever it says?

Paul Flynn: I cherish the history of this country; I cherish the Book of Aneirin, Y Gododdin, presumably written on vellum:
“Gwyr a aeth i Gatreath
Godidog oedd eu gwedd”.
That goes back to the early centuries, before English existed as a language. Of course we treasure the past, and our heritage, but it has nothing to do with this century. We have other ways of maintaining a record. How precious are what we think of as these glorious words we produce, the prose of the laws that we pass. In 13 years of Labour Government, 75 laws were passed by Parliament and went through the whole process but were never implemented fully—never. They are rubbish; they are litter. Another such Bill at the moment, on psychoactive drugs, will do positive harm. I am afraid that we commit this sin. It is said that when there are crises, dogs bark, children cry and politicians legislate. Much of our legislation—the Bill on psychoactive drugs is an example of this—has no right to be preserved in any way. That will be regarded in the future, when the harm the legislation will do is obvious, as a vanity and an extravagance.
There are many outside who feel the austerity implemented mercilessly by that Government over there, who have taken large sums from people’s meagre incomes, with no attempt to make a case for that and no debate on it that makes sense. We have cut and cut again, and those people who are in financial distress will look at this House and laugh, and say, “There they go again: out of touch, looking after themselves and wasting huge sums of money—£100,000 for the parchment, £47 million for Kids Company—and for what?” Those on the Government Benches can say, “Oh yes, we have done that,” but we have 3.7 million children in poverty. We are not talking about them tonight, but we have saved the vellum. Contemptible.

John Bercow: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), I should emphasise that I am looking to call the shadow deputy Leader of the House at approximately 6.35 pm. I simply make the point that interventions are perfectly orderly and proper, but if there is a profusion of them colleagues on the list wanting to be called to speak will not be called. I am afraid colleagues will have only themselves to blame, to put it as bluntly but politely as I can. Let us help each other.

Iain Stewart: I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr Speaker, in this important debate.
I start by adding my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on putting the case so powerfully. I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for her work, and also to Brian White, the former Member for North East Milton Keynes, for his championing of the cause. Brian has just announced his retirement from Milton Keynes Council and has given many years of dedicated public service. I am happy to pay tribute here to all the work that he has done for this cause and many others.
My reason for speaking has been mentioned—Milton Keynes is home to the last British producer of vellum, William Cowley, founded in 1870 and family-owned throughout, which currently employs six people. It is in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for  Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), who, if he were not bound by ministerial responsibilities, would be hoping to speak in the debate. My comments can be amplified by him.
It is rather ironic that the home to one of the oldest traditions and industries in this country is located in the borough that is perhaps the most modern, the newest of new towns, the innovator of matters digital, autonomous pods, smart cities and the rest, but we are very proud to have it in Milton Keynes. Although I am a great believer in innovating digital technology, records and so on, I believe that we should preserve for all time the laws of this place on an indestructible material, and not run the risk that everything gets wiped out one day by some cyber-attack. I take comfort from the fact that we will have a permanent record here.
We should not take a risk with one of the oldest industries. Most nations of the world use vellum from William Cowley to record their national history for future generations or to create documents and works of art. Britain is the world’s foremost authority on vellum. We should not underestimate the disbelief in other countries that we are even considering ending its use. Should we decide today to turn our backs on vellum, we are likely to consign another traditional craft to the history books. It will lead us to import more from overseas. It risks supplies to other bodies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) eloquently pointed out.
I cannot see good reasons to abandon the practice. Vellum is cost-effective. There is an opportunity cost if we move to other sources. Vellum does not require intricate monitoring of storage. There is no need for expensive systems of microbiological or insect control. It is non-combustible, so there is no need for expensive non-water-based fire prevention systems. It is 16 times more durable than the highest quality paper available. I represent Milton Keynes, but I come from Scotland. Thrift is important and I abide by the old adage, “Buy cheap and you buy often.” Vellum is eco-friendly. It is, as we have heard, a by-product of the meat and dairy industry. The skins not used for vellum would otherwise have to be incinerated or go to landfill. It avoids tree felling and the use of chemicals to treat the paper.
We should protect our heritage and tradition of skilled craftspeople. I cannot see a problem that needs to be fixed by abandoning the use of vellum. I therefore hope the House will enthusiastically back the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire.

Ronnie Cowan: I have been fortunate enough to represent Inverclyde in this House for almost a year. In that time I have welcomed a number of constituents to the parliamentary estate not only to give them a tour of these historic buildings, but to show them how this Parliament operates. While guiding my constituents through the Royal Gallery and Central Lobby, I have often thought that the Palace of Westminster would make a magnificent museum.
I am not against tradition and today I am proudly wearing my Innerkip Society tie. The Innerkip was established as a charitable organisation in 1798, and for over 218 years has survived to do its good work in the Inverclyde community by adapting and moving with the times.
Politically, Westminster means different things to different people, but this Parliament has had an undeniable influence on the history and culture of the UK’s nations over the centuries. Those centuries have led to the development of many important traditions, and I hope we can all agree that the history of any elected Chamber is worthy of respectful consideration.
However, I would caution that we should not let grand architecture and fine paintings distract us from the primary purpose of this building—as a functional centre of governance. It will be apparent to some Members that the UK Parliament does not always convincingly carry out that purpose. We need only look at the outdated estimates process, the antiquated upper House’s unelected bishops and hereditary peers or this Chamber’s box of complimentary snuff to see that every tradition is not worth continuing. Indeed, as Woody Allen said,
“Tradition is the illusion of permanence.”
It is in that context that we are here today to consider whether it is appropriate to continue recording public Acts of Parliament on vellum. Perhaps it is unsurprising that the modernisers in this debate are those advocating the use of paper—a writing material that has been available in Europe since the middle ages. Westminster politics has never been known for its ability to quickly adapt to changing circumstances.
Those arguing in favour of the continued use of vellum have cited its durability as one of the most important aspects of its use. I understand the point that original copies of records should survive so that future generations can enjoy them. I suggest, however, that the UK Government flatter themselves if they think that, 500 years hence, schoolchildren will clamour to visit this Parliament, eager to see an original copy of the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Act 2016. Whether or not legislation is written down on paper that is replaced over subsequent generations is inconsequential; it is the idea, principles and continued effectiveness of our laws, not the means of recording them, that are most worthy of our attention.
As Members are aware, the National Archives are one of two locations in which vellum copies of new public Acts are stored, and the National Archives, too, take the practical view that archival-quality paper is sufficient to maintain the public record.
Ultimately, there are risks associated with any form of recording, whether vellum, archival paper or full digitisation. We should be wary of anyone claiming that there is any one foolproof method of storage. Lack of foresight and unpredictable events have led to the destruction of records before and may do so again. It is worth remembering that the vellum records in the House of Commons archive were destroyed by fire in 1834, with the House of Lords records surviving only because they were housed in a separate building. Many nationally significant paper records have also been destroyed—particularly during the blitz.
Digitisation has also had its difficulties, as evidenced by the BBC Domesday project, which ran from 1984 to 1986, but which faced technological difficulties just 15 years later. My personal preference is for a combination of archival paper and digitisation. After all, the increased accessibility as a result of digitisation has undoubtedly improved the transparency of our public records.
I am sympathetic to those who argue that discontinuing the use of vellum would negatively affect the UK’s sole  remaining producer. I would never argue lightly in favour of a measure that negatively impacted on the employment of any Member’s constituents.
None the less, Westminster is not a museum. It does not exist to propagate tradition for the sake of tradition. We are here to govern, to pass laws and to do so in a way that reflects the UK’s nations as they are today—not as they were in the past. For too long, this Parliament has doggedly refused to enter the 21st century. I therefore urge colleagues to vote against the motion.
Finally, if anyone from digital services is listening, could they please pop into my office and fix my printer? I have a sheet of vellum stuck in it—apparently vellum is not compatible with the 21st century.

John Bercow: Order. I am sorry that I must now, with immediate effect, reduce the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to three minutes, but I do so with the purpose of trying to accommodate everybody.

Wendy Morton: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), who has been fighting the good fight to maintain the 1,000-year tradition of using vellum for the printing and preservation of Acts of Parliament. I confess that I have a vested interest: I successfully took a private Member’s Bill through this place and it became an Act of Parliament. However, you will be pleased to hear, Mr Speaker, that there will be no jokes about Peter Pan and Wendy this evening.
When I first came to this place, I was—I often still am—bemused by its many traditions, but they are an integral part of everything that makes this place the mother of all Parliaments. The use of vellum is one such tradition. In a world of fast-moving technology, which we have heard about this afternoon, and of improvements in printing and processing techniques, and document storage, I agree that it is only right to review the practices for printing record copies of public Acts. Some might call me a dinosaur, but I do not think that there is anything wrong with holding on to a tradition of history.
Printing on vellum is a long-standing tradition. Record copies of public Acts have been printed on vellum since 1849. Vellum is far more durable than paper, even archival paper. Without vellum, as we have heard, we would not have Magna Carta, the Domesday Book, the Lindisfarne documents or many other important historical documents.
Time is pressing, so I will conclude my comments there, except to add that the anticipated savings do not justify a departure from this long-standing tradition. Although the world is, indeed, changing, it is important that we do not lose some of our great traditions, so we should not let the use of vellum simply die out.

Ranil Jayawardena: Traditions are an important part of our country, our way of life and, indeed, our Parliament. Without them, this House would be a duller, drearier place. As we know from history, once traditions are torn down, it is all but impossible to revive them.
On the question of vellum, I am tempted to defer to Edmund Burke’s view of society as a contract between the living, the dead and those who are not yet born. I have no wish to deprive future generations of the ability to touch and smell the records of their past. In fact, we have a duty to our descendants to leave behind an abiding physical record of our laws and customs, just as our forebears, in their turn, did for us.
Without doubt, vellum is the natural document to last the ages. Without vellum, we would not have the Domesday Book, nor would we have been able to mark more than 800 years of Magna Carta, with all the historical significance that the four surviving 1215 copies added to our celebrations in Odiham in my constituency and elsewhere. It is entirely due to vellum that awe-inspiring texts such as the St Cuthbert Gospel from the 7th century have survived for so long. Even by the most generous estimates, the archive paper that the other place has proposed as a substitute to vellum has nothing like its lifespan.
As our methods of documentation move into an increasingly digitised world, we will gradually lose the ability to experience historical artefacts and to immerse ourselves fully in the study of the past. Every time a dusty volume is replaced by a PDF, and every time a print newspaper transfers to the internet, we gain something—our lives become more efficient and the pursuit of knowledge becomes easier—but we also lose something: the tactile elegance, the timeless simplicity and the physical permanence of record-keeping.
When it comes to preserving this valuable tradition, I believe that Paul Wright, who works for the vellum manufacturer, put it best when he said, “If it’s precious, put it on vellum.” If we in this House have the confidence to make and enact laws, we must also deem them worthy of preserving through the ages.

David Warburton: I wonder whether we are belittling ourselves slightly. Yes, vellum is almost immortally permanent and—from the Domesday Book to the equally wondrous Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2016—has faithfully freighted and defended its contents. If we ditch it for a ream of A4 80 gsm paper, or whatever it might be, our descendants will watch as the laws governing them gradually putrefy, wither and dissolve. Yes, that might be an advantage for many things, but is not this about more than a practical issue?
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that every day we sit in this place and hear soaring flights of Ciceronian oratory from both sides of the House. This place bears witness to an indefatigable tide of facts, figures and predictions, all of which are dispensed with rhetorical clusters of clauses and sub-clauses nesting like Russian dolls, and held up with towering eloquence. Is it not fitting for the laws, Bills and Acts in which those words are made manifest to be conveyed and preserved in a manner worthy of their breadth and nobility?
I am sure hon. Members will remember “Gulliver’s Travels”, in which one Lilliputian inspired awe in the others because he was taller than his peers by the breadth of one fingernail. We must not be guilty of the same—of thinking small and measuring ourselves against one  another instead of taking the wider view and the historical perspective, and reflecting the enormous historical significance and distinction of this place.
We have faced this hurdle before when, with great irony, the distinguished and noble Members of another place sought to end a millennium-long tradition. While balancing precariously on a quivering tower of ritual custom and convention, they thrust their ancient swords in the direction of another small part of our heritage, and their efforts were thwarted. I, for one, hope we will resist them again.
In this place, the thought ought to be not, “Can we make do?” but, “Can we do no better?” I am delighted that so many Members support this motion. As negligible as a politician is, and however much today’s Lilliputian thoughts might seem perishable, it is incumbent on us today to uphold their imperishability.

William Wragg: It is a pleasure to follow that Ciceronian example of oratory from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on their work.
I wish to address a point that I feel has been somewhat overlooked: these proposals represent the thin end of the wedge, and a general direction of travel away from physical storage and towards a digital-only future that I would want to avoid. I was concerned to read in a written answer from 9 November last year that in addition to reassurances that archive paper is a sufficient replacement for vellum—a claim I dispute—further reassurance was offered that Parliament maintains a comprehensive database of legislation, both “as originally enacted” and “as amended” on the website www. legislation.gov.uk. I took that as a sign that some think that web-based archives can be the equivalent of hard copies, but they are not, for the simple reason that technology evolves far too quickly to serve as a permanent record for any sensible length of time. New and “better” devices and file formats come on the market every month, and it takes only a few years for technology to become redundant. If I handed you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a copy of your maiden speech from 1997 on a floppy disk, would you be able to access it readily? I doubt that you would, and let us not even begin thinking about transferring documents between PC and Apple formats.
Many computer devices that are sold now do not even feature CD-drives, such is the fashion for online storage—the “cloud”. While online storage might be the current flavour of the decade and it works fine for now, such is the pace of change that I ask whether we can really expect information to be stored sufficiently in that format in 10 or 20 years, let alone in 500 or 1,000 years. If we are not cautious, we could soon be facing a new digital dark age in which accessing digital files from a few years earlier will prove trickier and trickier.

Paul Beresford: One difficulty is that although the law is printed on vellum, its implementation is done through statutory instruments, which are printed on paper and kept digitally. The other interesting thing  that I have found—being old enough—is that digital records are changed and moved as we go on with digital invention.

William Wragg: My hon. Friend raises a number of interesting points, although whether we should print the deliberations of statutory instrument Committees on vellum is a moot point.
I simply warn about this digital dark age that will soon be sweeping over us. We should resist the change and hold on to an established, prestigious, and time-tested physical form of record storage—the premier form of record storage which, of course, is vellum.
I am fortunate enough to have the honour that my private Member’s Bill has been passed by the House. It is currently making its way through the other place but, if these proposals go ahead, I could add to that honour the somewhat more dubious one that should my Bill receive Royal Assent, it could become one of the last few Acts of Parliament to be recorded on vellum.

Paul Beresford: May I inform my hon. Friend that since 1956 that has been what happens? I am sorry, but if he gets his Bill through, it will not be on vellum.

William Wragg: I am hugely disappointed. I wonder whether I would be able to ask the fine procurer of vellum in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), to print the Act. I would be happier to forgo the honour of having my Act of Parliament printed on vellum if I knew that future Acts would be printed on vellum.

Sharon Hodgson: As a point of clarification, I also promoted a private Member’s Bill that became law, and it is printed on vellum. I have seen and held it, and it is definitely vellum. It is private Acts, not private Members’ Acts, that are printed on paper.

William Wragg: I am grateful for that helpful intervention from the hon. Lady, who is extremely learned in these matters. In conclusion, I say to the House that our predecessors in this Chamber resisted the change proposed by the other place in 1999, and I urge Members to do so again today.

Melanie Onn: Anybody who is watching BBC Parliament today will be completely confused about why the House is spending the best part of two hours debating whether to continue spending £100,000 a year printing laws on goatskins. I am surprised that this is how we are choosing to spend precious time in the Chamber. When there is a refugee crisis in Europe, the country is facing a huge decision on whether to remain in the EU, and child poverty and homelessness are increasing, surely we could be putting this sitting to better use. It is embarrassing that time limits had to be imposed on speeches in the previous debate on genocide by Daesh against ethnic and religious minorities so that we could debate this motion. I am also quite surprised that the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is normally so eager to tell us of his prudence with taxpayers’ money, has said that the Government will find—

James Gray: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady indicates from the Dispatch Box that the time for the previous debate, which was a grave and important debate about Daesh, was curtailed to accommodate this debate. That is not correct. I went to great lengths to say that the previous debate could continue for as long as was desired, because this debate was much less important.

Lindsay Hoyle: That was not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record. The problem is that I am struggling to hear because of the shouting.

Melanie Onn: If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) had listened, he would have heard that I said that there were reductions in the time that people had to speak, which is a perfectly valid point—

Robert Jenrick: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Melanie Onn: I will finish my sentence before I give way.
I am surprised that the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is normally so eager to tell us of his prudence with taxpayers’ money, has said that the Government will find the extra money for this with no problem. I thought that the Government had a long-term economic plan, but it can hardly be called that if money can be found down the back of the sofa whenever it suits the Government politically.

Robert Jenrick: When I heard that the hon. Lady was opposed to the proposal, I took the liberty—I hope she does not mind—of looking up whether there are any important documents from the town of Grimsby that are printed on vellum and would not have existed had they been printed on paper. It turns out that in Grimsby town hall there are 14 boxes of them including, from 1227, the charter creating the town of Grimsby; from 1256, the charter granting the town of Grimsby its right—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Sit down, Mr Jenrick. [Interruption.] I suggest you sit down—[Interruption.] Order. Mr Flynn, I certainly do not need any help from you. I say to you, Mr Jenrick, that the Minister is desperate to come in. By all means make the point, but you cannot read a list as though it is the phone directory to tell me what is there or not. We have got the message; let us get on.

Melanie Onn: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) takes such a close interest in Great Grimsby’s fantastic history. However, we are talking about today, not the 1200s.
The Minister has said that the process is surprisingly cost-effective, and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has said that keeping vellum costs little or nothing. However, the cost to Parliament of producing vellum in 2014-15 was £107,000. As the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) mentioned, using the most expensive parchment paper would cost just £8,000. You know what they say, Mr Deputy Speaker: “£100,000 here, £100,000 there—it soon starts to add up to real money.”
The Lords Committee cited a more conservative estimate of a saving of £80,000 a year from scrapping vellum. However, that does not take into account the renewal of the printing contract, under which the cost is likely to be greater than under the current arrangements, and nor does that take account of the cost of producing and printing the mammoth HS2 hybrid Bill, should that ever pass into law. At 49,000 pages long, I hate to think how many goats it will take to produce two copies.

James Gray: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Melanie Onn: This expense is simply to continue a tradition because that is the way it has always been—that seems to be the only genuine argument that has been presented for continuing to print Acts of Parliament on vellum. A much more important tradition is the 800-year-old one that all Members of this House are equal, which the Government ended when they introduced English votes for English laws in such a shoddy way. Conservative Members were willing to let go of that tradition, and I see no reason why the tradition we are debating today is more worthy of retention.
The Minister and other hon. Members have said that vellum should be kept as it is the only way to maintain physical copies of Acts of Parliament for the long term, but the Parliamentary Archives contains paper records that date back just as long as vellum ones. The manuscript journals of the House of Lords, which date back to 1510, have been printed on paper, but the oldest vellum record is an Act of Parliament from 1497, which is a difference of only 13 years.
I know that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire likes to remind everyone that if Magna Carta had been printed on paper, it would have been lost in about 1465, sometime before the birth of Henry VIII, but we are not talking about Magna Carta. As the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) pointed out, we are talking about the Coinage (Measurement) Act 2011, the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 and every other Bill that is passed in this place. I might also point out that there was a greater need to print on vellum at the time when Magna Carta was drafted, given the surprise emergence of computers and the internet since the 13th century.
Several hon. Members raised concerns about the future of William Cowley, which is a serious point because that company currently provides the vellum for Acts of Parliament.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Melanie Onn: We support this industry and agree that it is worth maintaining—[Interruption.] In response to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), I am not giving way because I have only two minutes left before the speech from the Minister, who wants to take 13 minutes to make his point clear.
We support this industry and agree that it is worth maintaining, but the company produces thousands of pages of vellum every year and its contract with Parliament is only a small part of its business. The company’s general manager has said that the loss of the contract  with Parliament would be “nothing”, and I think that we should accept his expert opinion.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office said to The Daily Telegraph yesterday:
“Printing vellum copies of laws…provides a durability we cannot guarantee in the digital world, as we simply cannot know how easy it will be to read today’s data in a decade, let alone in a millennium.”
What absolute rubbish! One minute the Cabinet Office brags about
“building new digital services so good people prefer using them to the old paper versions they replace”,
and the next it says that it is all going to be unreadable in 10 years’ time. If we follow his logic, everything should be printed on vellum, not just Acts of Parliament.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire and the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) have claimed that to ditch vellum would be to downgrade the importance of the law of the land. As very few people are actually aware of laws being printed on goatskin in the first place, I can only think that they must be talking about the effect on themselves and their Conservative colleagues. If they believe the law would no longer be important after the change to manuscript paper, people might want to keep an eye on them.
I find it particularly surprising that the hon. Member for North East Somerset, who has written an article in The Daily Telegraph today, agrees with the argument that it is important for Acts to last 5,000 years. His lack of concern about rising global temperatures had led me to believe that he was not all that bothered about anything still being here in the year 7016.
Finally, there is the question of why on earth the Minister for the Cabinet Office is getting involved. This is a matter for the Lords, not the Commons or the Government. If the Government do wish to involve themselves, why is the Leader of the House not leading on this matter, rather than the Minister for the Cabinet Office? I am sure that there are much more useful things a Government Minister could be doing with his time, and there are certainly much more worthy causes on which £100,000 of taxpayers’ money could be spent each year. He should let the Lords end this archaic process and get on with something more important. The world has moved on since 1497 and it is time that this place did too.

Matthew Hancock: It falls to this House to debate issues both large and small. Today’s debate has shown that this issue is both large and small: large because the question of how, as a Parliament and as a country, we record the sovereign laws of our land, and whether we should protect the traditions by which we have done this for many centuries, is of great importance; and small because the financial sums involved and the savings offered by the change that we are debating are but a minuscule fraction of the overall cost of government.
I want to be clear that this is, first and foremost, a House matter. Should the House carry the motion today, I hope that we can work with the other place to find a path forward that both Houses find satisfactory. In that spirit of pragmatism, the Government have offered financial support from other savings, without  further burdening taxpayers, to ensure that this tradition, which is of great symbolic and practical value, is not irrecoverably broken by a lack of funding on this small scale.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on his tireless campaigning. I have been buoyed by the support that we have received from across the House and, indeed, the other place. The case was set out powerfully by him, by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), and by many Members across the House.

Paul Beresford: It is absolutely inappropriate for the Government to dictate to the Houses of Parliament by a payment. The way in which it should work is that the Houses decide and pass on the bill, as traditionally happens every year. The Minister should know that. To tell us that he will pay for one specific thing is inappropriate.

Matthew Hancock: This is indeed a matter for the House, and this House is just about to make sure that its view is well known.
The speech by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), the intervention by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) were incredibly powerful and persuasive. There are Members who sit on the Treasury Bench, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) and for Devizes (Claire Perry), who would have spoken had convention not prevented them from doing so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) made the case for abolition, but his speech ended up as a haggle about the costs. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) railed against the rule of law, ultimately, arguing that it was not worth preserving laws. Well, I think that the rule of law in this country is important and should be preserved.

Paul Flynn: The Minister is distorting the point I made. This is a vanity issue. Does he not realise that the people outside this House who have been badly hurt by the austerity cuts of this Government will look at that £100,000, and the £37 million that his Department gave to Kids Company, and imagine what they could do with it? The Government have been so mean on the employment and support allowance and on the bedroom tax, but are saving the vellum.

Matthew Hancock: It is only because of the careful management of public finances that we can preserve and safeguard our best traditions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) brought his great and deep expertise to the debate, and told us why Dr Porck thinks we should print on goatskin. For that insight, I thank him. I also pay tribute to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), which was powerful and rhetorical, and made the point succinctly. All I think I can safely say about the speech by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) is that she managed in her remarks to oppose the very material on  which her own town’s charter is printed. I never expected to say this in the House, but her speech made me think, “Bring back Austin Mitchell.”
Why does this matter? First, because in a world racked by instability, volatility and change, we must safeguard our great traditions. I am an optimist about the power of human ingenuity, innovation and technology, and their ability to transform our lives. I passionately believe that modern invention can radically improve the way we do almost everything in Government. I am responsible for digital transformation and for cyber-security. But this is not a debate that pits tradition against modernity, because a truly modern outlook does not put them up against each other. Novelty is no guarantee of improvement. Traditions matter precisely because they connect us with the collective wisdom of our predecessors. There are times when a tradition should and must be done away with, but traditions should not be broken lightly, especially those of the longest standing, for once discarded, they cannot be replaced easily, and sometimes cannot be replaced at all. Let us combine the best of the old with the best of the new.

Sharon Hodgson: I am grateful to the Minister for letting me intervene, especially as I wanted to make a similar point to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who would not give way. I am pleased that the Minister is bringing the debate back to tradition. I come back again to my point about heritage craft. We are going to spend billions on saving this building, when it would be a lot cheaper to build a 21st-century building somewhere else. Heritage matters. The tiles that are being replaced out in Central Lobby are individually handmade; that money could have been spent on the poor. Why is no one making that argument? The same argument is not made about the fund for international development. Does he agree with me?

Matthew Hancock: I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of our traditions. The Heritage Crafts Association, which she so ably spoke for, has for many years supported the skills needed to keep these crafts going. I knew its work when I was Minister of State for Skills and Enterprise, and am delighted to support the skills of those who make and print on vellum now.
Committing our laws to this robust material underlines the point that the law of the land is immutable and that the rule of law is steadfast. We should never take that for granted. To those who say that this is symbolism, I say yes, it is vital symbolism. What else are laws but symbols on a page? What are these symbols? They are symbols of great importance that make up and underpin the fabric of our society. The vellum record copies of Acts—signed in Norman French, no less, by the Clerk of the Parliaments—are part of the rich character of this House and of our evolving constitution, just like Black Rod’s staff or the colour of the Benches of this Chamber. The symbolic power of vellum is undeniable. After the public outcry that followed the proposal to scrap it, it is time to reconsider. As Burke said, the British constitution is like an ancient house that
“stands well enough, though part Gothic, part Grecian, and part Chinese, until an attempt is made to square it into uniformity. Then it may come down upon our heads altogether in much uniformity of ruin”.
Let us not make the mistake of trying to square this great tradition into uniformity.
That is the symbolic case, but let me turn to the practical case for vellum. By any measure, vellum is far more durable and far stronger than archive paper, lasting thousands of years. It is hard to destroy, and without vellum, would we today have copies of the Domesday Book, the Magna Carta, the Lindisfarne gospels, Henry VIII’s certificate of marriage or Charles I’s warrant of death? I doubt that we would. Portugal is this nation’s most long-standing ally, and since 1373, the Anglo-Portuguese treaty has held the force of law, and it can be read. Why? Because it was written on vellum. We used vellum even for the town charter of Grimsby.

Barbara Keeley: I would like to take the opportunity to add to that list the charter for the Salford Hundred, a document showing that Salford was of greater cultural and commercial importance than its neighbour, Manchester. Even in times of austerity, documents like that, written on vellum, are so important to the people of Salford.

Matthew Hancock: And to places around the country: Grimsby, Salford, Chester—you name it. [Interruption.] Ebbsfleet—any more bids?
Let me deal with the costs. As has been noted, I bow to no one in my desire to save taxpayers’ money. For the first half of this decade, the drive for savings has been the backdrop to debate in this House, and I expect that to continue for some years yet. The Administration Committee estimates that the cost to Parliament of using vellum has been a little over £100,000 a year. Of course, any alternative would have its own costs, so all this amount could not be saved in any case.
Last year, the total costs of the House of Lords were around £100 million. If both Houses decide to sit for one extra day, the cost runs into tens of thousands. By comparison with the resources put into researching, debating and passing each Bill, the printing of an Act on vellum is negligible. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley called the costs “not significant”. The savings proposed are just a tenth of 1% of the budget of the House of Lords, and one hundred thousandth of 1% of the total budget of the Government.
Vellum’s durability means that it is excellent value for money. At today’s prices, printing the Magna Carta on vellum would cost about £6 per century. I do not know of any other data storage system that can beat that, so I can give the House the commitment that, should there be any extra costs, taxpayers will be protected, and we will work with both Houses to find a solution that can work. I have heard the argument that there is only one printer and that it is being dismantled, but that is just not true. There are a multitude of printers; indeed, I printed the first page of my speech on vellum on a laser printer.
We have looked into the matter of suppliers, and one consequence of this debate and the scrutiny it has provided is that we can bring the costs of printing on vellum down. I have heard that we are running out of space for storage. That is not true. At the current rate, we could pass Acts for 500 years and there would be space enough in the Victoria tower for them. On the basis of symbolism, cost and practicality, therefore, we should continue this great and long tradition.

James Gray: What a fine debate this has been. It has been well informed and impassioned on all sides. I believe that 13 of the 15 speakers supported the motion, while the two or three who did not were very helpful to my case, so I was grateful to them. The fact of the matter is that children up and down the land are told that the laws of the land are important, and one symbol of that importance is that they are printed on vellum. The durability and traditional quality of vellum, the traditions of this House and the way in which vellum symbolises the importance of the laws of the land all make it crucial that, for a marginal cost, if any, we continue with this long tradition.
In 1999, we told the House of Lords that we in the House of Commons were the people who must decide these matters. I therefore call on Members once again to assert our House’s right to say how we wish the laws of the land to be recorded.
Question put.

Resolved,
That this House disagrees with the conclusion of the House of Commons Administration Committee’s First Report of Session 2015–16; welcomes the view expressed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General that government funds would be available to pay for the continued use of vellum for printing Acts of Parliament; is unwilling to amend or resile from the terms of the Resolutions agreed by both Houses on 12 February 1849; and accordingly instructs the Clerk of the House to convey to the Clerk of the Parliaments that the House of Commons has withheld its consent to the use of archival paper rather than vellum for the printing of record copies of public Acts of Parliament.

Ronnie Cowan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to clarify one point. The Minister for the Cabinet Office stated that the first page of his speech was printed on vellum. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Never mind the hon. Gentleman having his hand in his pocket, I want to hear the point of order.

Ronnie Cowan: The first page of the Minister’s speech was of course not printed on vellum. It may have been printed on a product called vellum paper, which is a completely different synthetic product. It is not vellum.

Lindsay Hoyle: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that that is not a point for the Chair, and I am certainly not going to reopen the debate after what we have just been through.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

European Agenda on Security

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 8293/15, a Commission Communication: The European Agenda on Security, and its relationship to the Renewed Internal Security Strategy 2015–2020; and supports the Government’s approach of working with other Member States to support our international partners in the area of EU internal security, recognising that national security is a matter for individual nations through their sovereign Parliaments.—(Charlie Elphicke.)
Question agreed to.

PETITION - SPORTS PITCHES AT SHUGBOROUGH HALL, STAFFORDSHIRE

Jeremy Lefroy: I rise to present a petition about sports pitches at Shugborough Hall in my constituency of Stafford. I pay tribute to Jeanette Daly who, accompanied by many others from the area of Great Haywood, Little Haywood and Colwich, has done a tremendous amount work on the matter. I declare an interest in that I am a member of the National Trust.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the sports pitches to the south of Shugborough Hall are well used and a valuable asset to local and area teams; further that the pitches have been part of a recreation site for decades; further that the proposals put forward by the National Trust to close the pitches in order to create parkland would have a negative impact on sports provision in Staffordshire and make it harder for local people to pursue a healthy and active lifestyle; further notes that these proposals have not been consulted upon; and further that a local petition on a similar matter has been signed by 1,000 individuals.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to call on the National Trust to work with the local community to arrive at a compromise where the sports pitches at Shugborough Hall can continue to be used by local sports teams.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001685]

BUTTERFIELDS ESTATE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Charlie Elphicke.)

Stella Creasy: Tonight, we are holding a debate about the future of the Butterfields estate in Walthamstow, but I want to tell the Minister about the properties and the residents who live in them. The story is not unique to Walthamstow; it is a story of what is happening in our housing market around the country due to a lack of properties, and speculative developers and letting and estate agents, who seek to maximise gains without any thought to the consequences of exploiting people in this uncompetitive market. I hope to persuade the Minister to help not only to change the future for the residents of the Butterfields estate, many of whom are in the Gallery this evening, but to tackle the underlying problems that enabled the situation to arise in the first place. I expect that he has not heard the story of Butterfields, so I intend to set that out and then ask a series of questions.
Last November, Butterfields E17 Ltd, a company formed just a few months before by Jasbir Singh Jhumat and Pardeep Singh Jhumat, bought the 63 flats on Shernhall Street and Butterfields in Walthamstow from a landlord who had owned the flats for almost 80 years. Hon. Members may have seen this part of my constituency on TV or in the newspapers—I am sure that for the Housing Minister “Location, Location, Location” is required zeitgeist viewing and that he pores over Time Out and the property hotspots in the Evening Standard—because it is at the edge of Walthamstow village.
The tenants were not told at the time that their homes had been sold by their previous long-term owner, the Glasspool Charity Trust, a charity whose charitable purpose is to prevent destitution—I will return to that irony later. No one told them their landlord had changed. They learned of this when some tenants started getting notices to quit in January 2016 from their new landlords, telling them they had just two more months to live in Walthamstow. Sixteen tenants have so far been served with notices to quit, and they are mainly people on fairly low incomes. Almost half of them have young children, and two have retired. Most of them have lived on the estate for a long time—up to 16 years, with an average stay of seven years.
This is a real community. It is not just those 16 households who are at risk; the owners have made it clear that they wish to sell on all the homes eventually. Like one in five households in this country, the only crime these people have committed is not being able to afford to get on the property ladder and so they are having to rent, meaning that they can be moved on at any time. Their good record on paying rent and taking care of these properties matters little to the new owners—businessmen with a slew of companies recorded at Companies House set up one after another and dissolved just as quickly, some with health and safety breaches recorded against them, too. The only concern of these companies has been to try to get the residents out as quickly as possible so that they can sell on these properties to make a profit in London’s overheated housing market: to capitalise on the gentrification buzz that puts Walthamstow at the top of so many housing lists.
To that end, these people have even sent the residents letters claiming they were no longer tenants because they had been served with an eviction notice, and suggesting they could face fines of thousands of pounds in the courts, as well as having their career prospects damaged if they fight the evictions. Despite the legislation on revenge evictions, these good tenants, mostly with assured shorthold tenancies, now have to fight for their very rights, including the right for their deposits to be protected—this company also failed to tell them about that when it bought the properties. No current legislation is stopping the juggernaut of these developers riding roughshod over these residents’ rights as they chase a quick profit. In March, the new landlord put six of the flats up for auction with Savills, without telling the occupying tenants or telling the people seeking to buy those properties that they had tenants in them. Three were sold, for £300,000 each, which we think is about £50,000 more than the price paid for them. I also want to come back to that point when talking about the charity that sold the estate.
This is not necessarily a bad news story for the Minister, because today I can reveal that Dolphin Living, part of the Dolphin Square Charitable Foundation, has formally stated that it is prepared to make an offer for the entire estate, helping to keep these hard-working residents in their homes and working for this city. Yet still the owners refuse to negotiate, hoping that by their tactics residents will go quietly and they can continue to flog off the flats to push up their profits. They have pound signs in their eyes, but good business sense has gone out the window. They are bullying, misleading and riding roughshod over the rights of these people. The question is: just how did they end up being able to buy all these properties? That is where NatWest comes into this story.
It was NatWest that financed the purchase of this estate. This is the same NatWest bank that we, as taxpayers, own 73% of. Yet it is financing the break-up of a community. Ironically, it is doing so during a Treasury consultation about the Bank of England’s role in regulating buy-to-let lending. This is at a time when UK productive corporate investment is low by historical and international comparison. NatWest bank owns a separate charge on each of the 63 flats, linked to its loan. No other funder has a charge on the flats. It is simply inconceivable that it did not know of the plans to evict the tenants, as how else would this loan be repaid? One would have hoped compliance would have flagged up the chequered history of the people who took out the loans.
NatWest policies explicitly state:
“Our firm commitment is to lend responsibly. It is not in our interest to enter into unsustainable commercial agreements, or to lend to organisations, or individuals, which could damage the bank’s reputation.”
I hope we can all agree on one thing across the House tonight: if making 63 families homeless is not bad for your reputation, what is? Yet NatWest tells me that its executive response team has not found any evidence that the bank did not act in accordance with its policy and procedures.
I am here not to discuss the pros and cons of the bail-out, but to say very plainly that we will pay the price twice for NatWest’s conduct. We will pay the cost of the bail-out and the cost of helping these families if  they are made homeless. I hope that the Minister will agree to act and to raise this matter with NatWest directly. The Government have taken an active interest in the future of NatWest. They sought to sort out its leadership; now it is time for us to use our muscle with this institution to make it live its values in its lending policies.
That multi-million pound loan given to Butterfields E17 Ltd diverts resources away from meeting the serious costs of funding the needs of small businesses. That bank is also fuelling the speculation in higher housing costs, which is so detrimental to my local community, without funding any building work despite the challenge of building houses in this country. It is not too late for NatWest to act. NatWest is entitled under the terms of the charge to withhold consent from any sale and to prevent any other charge being put on the property. It can ask its clients why they did not seem to understand tenancy rights, which puts them at risk of lengthy court proceedings. It could ask why, when a serious organisation such as Dolphin Living wants to work with them, they do not negotiate or even pick up the phone. I know all this because I have spent the past month trying to do that deal for them.
If we cannot save this estate with the help of Dolphin, the fate of these residents is unlikely to be happy. Local rents have rocketed to close to double the amount that these tenants were originally paying and far above what most of them can afford. Claiming housing benefit even if they were willing to reduce their net income is no longer feasible in a London where the limits on housing benefit are below local market rents. Indeed, many of my residents in Walthamstow pay nearly 60% of their monthly income on rent—little wonder that personal debt continues to rise in Walthamstow. Most would have to move away, losing out financially with higher travel costs or having to give up work. Their children would no longer be able to stay in our local schools. A well-established community would be broken up to the detriment not just of those residents but of Walthamstow itself.
Some have suggested that the council could buy the estate—as though, under this Government, it has a spare £16 million going—or put the residents at the top of its already stretched housing waiting list. Although Waltham Forest Council has been trying to help the residents with housing advice, the honest truth is that we already have 2,500 residents in our community in temporary accommodation. The lack of properties in the private rented sector as gentrification rips through both prices and local provision makes it even harder to keep people in our community.
I ask the Minister to raise this issue with his colleagues in the Cabinet Office, because I do not believe that the charity that sold this estate in the first place should be absent from its obligations to these residents. As I said at the start of my remarks, this charity’s explicit remit is to prevent destitution and homelessness, yet that is precisely what its actions are likely to cause.
Charity rules require that a charity should consider the impact of the disposal of assets such as this. Given that the tenants of Butterfields would have been, and could still be, direct beneficiaries of this charity, the consequences of this deal should have been consulted on, yet that did not happen. It did not happen because the charity listened to Clarke Hillyer letting agents,  which acted for both itself and Butterfields E17 Ltd, no doubt making a healthy profit for both without any sense that there was a conflict of interest. It encouraged the charity to sell the estate without any consultation with the residents.
We can accept that the charity wanted to raise funds for its charitable purpose, but to have sold these properties as a block in 2015 and seen them resold on at a higher price not six months later raises serious questions about the value of this deal to the charity. Indeed, we estimate that it is possible that it has lost around £3 million in pursuit of a quick windfall, which made it so blind to the interests of either the tenants or its supposed beneficiaries.
I have been told today that the Charity Commission is now investigating the matter, but that the charity did not need to seek permission for the sale to go ahead. Yet it is clear that when such a hypocritical deal takes place, where the charity looks for a £16 million windfall thereby putting its charitable purpose in a secondary position, it can only damage the confidence that all of us have in the concept of charitable status.
I have a series of questions for the Minister and a request that he makes a commitment to raise these matters explicitly with his colleagues and also with NatWest. Can he tell us what the conditions are of the bail-out to which banks must adhere, especially as they are lending in property markets, given that 60% of their books is mostly property? The Chancellor claimed that under his watch the banking system had been “reset”, that banks should “work for customers” and that the changes would mean that when mistakes were made it would be the banks, not the taxpayers, who would pick up the bill. If the Chancellor was serious about that, in this instance—with 63 families who will be made homeless and will therefore require help and support from the state—I presume that the Minister will recognise that this is a mistake and that there is a cost to not acting. What does he believe the consequences should be as a direct result of this decision?
Indeed, how will Ministers ensure in future that lenders such as NatWest, which is still owned by the taxpayer, will instead increase credit for the real economy and for productive purposes, not for the kind of speculation we have seen, which is skewing our housing market in London? The developers can do this because there is no protection for tenants from such shady landlords. Will the Minister not only change his mind on landlord licensing, which is having such an impact in Waltham Forest in helping to address the quality of our housing and in dealing with landlords such as these, who seem to think that health and safety is optional for a rental property, but reconsider powers in the Housing and Planning Bill to protect tenants such as those from the Butterfields estate who are facing no-fault evictions caused by the threat of fees?
It is clear that the landlord is seeking to use the threat of fees in the same way as it could have used the threat of eviction to try to pressurise the residents to void their rights. I hope that the Minister will recognise that it is time to protect those tenants who, through no fault of their own and in the London housing market, face possible eviction. Finally, will the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Cabinet Office about the regulation of this charity, Glasspool, and how we can ensure that  charities do not act to undermine their purpose and that the Charity Commission is robust in its approach to such situations?
Gentrification has undoubtedly bought benefits to my community—new shops, new investment, even new people—but it also clearly has costs and consequences. Without action, those costs will be borne by those who can least afford it and we will all pay the price. Developers, charities and banks that are so blinded by pound signs that they cannot see the damage they are doing require strong Governments to speak for the public interest. I hope the Minister will not just watch the TV shows or read the property pages but act today and in future to help to ensure that communities such Walthamstow can be a top location for all concerned.

Brandon Lewis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing this debate about the future of the Butterfields estate. I also take the opportunity to extend my sympathies to the residents affected, as I recognise the difficult position in which they have been placed, which they must feel is quite precarious. I shall deal with some of the key issues the hon. Lady has outlined, as well as some of the wider general issues.
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments about Walthamstow and know the area fairly well—as she might know, I went to school just down the road. It is a fabulous part of the country and a great part of London. She made some political comments, and I appreciate that we sit on opposite sides of the House. She talks about the opportunity to ensure that there are homes for people and that we have housing supply coming through, but I would make the point that we have a good track record, having doubled the number of first-time buyers since 2010 and having seen house building increase by 25% just last year. I gently remind her that next time she raises housing supply she might want to bear in mind that the previous Labour Government—in fact, the current shadow Housing Minister—left the country with the lowest level of house building since 1923. We have had quite a lot of work to do to get from that paltry 88,000 a year back to 181,000 over the past year. I am proud of that work.
To move on to this specific case, the decision by Glasspool to sell the estate is, as she will appreciate, a private matter relating to the charity’s management of its assets. However, as she outlined, Dolphin Living, which I know and which is an excellent organisation, wants to negotiate with the new landlords to keep the residents of the Butterfields estate in their new homes at the correct rent. I am happy to do what I can to support driving forward that negotiation to get the parties to the table. I cannot imagine that the residents could be in better hands than if they had Dolphin Living as an organisation to work with. The fact that Dolphin Living wants to be involved is good news and I encourage all parties to get involved. If I can play a part in helping with that, I will happily do so.
The Government recognise that people want the security of a home that is stable and sustainable. The residents in this case will feel that poignantly. Most people strive  to have their own home and we are determined to do all we can to deliver for them, both in terms of supply and, as the hon. Lady outlined, by making sure that people are protected. I will come on to that in a moment.
It is right that the local authority should do all it can to support and encourage the parties to work together. Despite the hon. Lady’s comments, she may want to go back and talk to her council about whether it will consider spending some of the £90 million that it has in reserves to be supportive and helpful. I am sure the council will want to help the residents in that situation.
We have embarked on the largest Government house building programme for 40 years. Over the past few years we delivered almost a million new homes, and we will deliver a million more by the end of this spending review, helping hundreds of thousands of people take the first step on the ladder to home ownership. We are also committed to building a bigger, better private rented sector, providing security and stability for both tenants and landlords. Increasing supply is the best way of improving quality, choice and, more importantly, affordability for tenants, but that will not be achieved without a significant boost to the investment coming into that sector. That is why we have put Government support behind it through our £1 billion Build to Rent fund, making sure that we are using our economic record to offer up to £10 billion of innovative housing guarantees. The affordable housing guarantee scheme has already provided more than £2 billion of investment.
On the existing legislation and how it is moving forward, the hon. Lady touched on the Housing and Planning Bill. Before shorthold tenancies were introduced by the Housing Act 1988, the private rental market was in decline. Regulated rents and lifetime tenancies meant that being a landlord was simply not commercially viable for many property owners. Since the changes in 1988, that sector has grown steadily, responded to the flexibility and created changes in the wider housing market. Private sector landlords play an important role in meeting the housing needs of many households. Of those who choose to live or have to live in the private rented sector, the vast majority will have an assured shorthold tenancy, which gives them certain rights under that Act. These include the right to live in the property as their home, and tenants can enforce their rights, for example, to get repairs done.
The legislation enables a landlord to regain possession of their property at any time after a fixed term comes to an end or at any time during a contractual or statutory periodic tenancy, provided it is at least six months since the start of the original tenancy. The landlord must give the tenant at least two months’ notice that they require possession. Without the certainty that landlords can do that when required, landlords and lenders would be reluctant to allow those properties to be let. We believe that more restrictive and excessive legislation, such as forcing longer tenancies or notice periods, would mean that fewer homes were available in the market to rent. That would not help landlords or tenants.
I agree with the hon. Lady’s comments about charities in the sector being very aware of their charitable purpose and their duty to their clients and beneficiaries.

Stella Creasy: I am pleased to hear the Minister say that he will help with the negotiation with Dolphin. That will take time. May I press him on no-fault evictions?  One of the things that residents present here tonight are afraid of are letters telling them that they could generate thousands of pounds in court fees. I am sure that many of them would love to be able to save for their new home, but sadly they will not be able to get on the housing ladder, given the prices in Walthamstow. The thought that they might incur several hundred or even several thousand pounds of fees is a stick that the landlord is using to beat them with. Just as we dealt with revenge evictions, I encourage the Minister to think about no-fault evictions. These tenants are paying their rent and they are not at fault, but their rights are being undermined. Is there a way of dealing with that?

Brandon Lewis: I will come to some of the provisions of the Housing and Planning Bill. I hope the hon. Lady will consider, possibly for the first time, supporting the Government’s work to provide more homes at an affordable rate for people in Walthamstow by delivering starter homes—homes for first-time buyers at a discount on the market price, which make house buying affordable again. Our increase in shared ownership also aims to do that. I hope she will get behind the Bill when it returns to the House in the next few weeks, before it gets Royal Assent, as we hope it will.
I will come to the wider issue of legislation in a second, but increasing the supply of private rented homes is only part of the picture, as the hon. Lady rightly says. The private rented sector is currently dominated by small landlords, with larger landlords owning 10 or more properties accounting for only 1% of the market. Many landlords provide a very good service, and by far the majority of tenants are happy with it, but I share the hon. Lady’s view that we want standards to rise across the board so that we drive out every last bad and rogue landlord, regardless of their position.
The Government therefore published the “How to rent” guide so that tenants know what they should expect from their landlords. The guide improves transparency, making more information available, and helping tenants to make informed decisions and to know their rights. That in itself can prevent more poor and substandard accommodation from being rented. Empowering tenants is key to our approach.
We have introduced legislation requiring all letting and management agents in England to belong to one of the three Government-approved redress schemes. We have also required them to publicise prominently in their offices and on their websites whether they are a member, for example, of a client money protection scheme and which redress scheme they are a member of, giving landlords and tenants a clear route to pursue complaints against agents and helping to drive up standards.
Just today, we have introduced an enabling power into the Housing and Planning Bill to make regulations to require letting agents and property management agents to belong to a client money protection scheme. That will protect the money of landlords and tenants if an agent goes into administration or from theft while the money is in the agent’s control.
We are determined to do all we can to protect people who rent privately against a tiny minority of rogue and criminal landlords who exploit their tenants by renting out unsafe or substandard accommodation, or who act unfairly. We have also made millions of pounds available to local authorities to identify and successfully prosecute rogue landlords.
We have introduced legislation to protect tenants against retaliatory eviction where they have legitimate complaints about the standard of their accommodation. We have placed restrictions on repossessions where a landlord has failed to comply with legal responsibilities on, for example, gas safety and the provision of information to tenants.
We are going further by introducing measures in the Housing and Planning Bill to tackle rogue landlords and property agents. That includes establishing a database of landlords and property agents who have been convicted of serious offences; introducing banning orders for the most prolific and serious offenders; issuing civil penalty notices of up to £30,000 for some breaches of housing legislation, and ring-fencing those resources for housing-compliance activity; extending rent repayment orders to cover situations where a tenant has been illegally evicted, or where the landlord has failed to rectify a serious health and safety hazard in the property or breached a banning order; and applying a more stringent “fit and proper person” test for landlords letting out licensed properties, such as houses in multiple occupation, to help ensure that those landlords have the appropriate skills to manage such properties and that they do not pose a risk to the health and safety of their tenants.
As with the penalties introduced through the Immigration Bill, those measures are meant to make sure that we target criminal landlords who ignore their existing legal obligations. The penalties will not have an impact on the vast majority of good landlords who comply with the law and who rent out good-quality and well-managed accommodation.
However, we need to do all we can, and the Government are going further than any Government before us to crack down on rogue and bad landlords. I am happy to continue to make the case to the hon. Lady that landlords who behave in a manner that is not fair or appropriate, and who do not provide the right services and accommodation to their tenants, should be driven out of the market.

Stella Creasy: I do appreciate what the Minister says about wanting to tackle rogue landlords. May I press him, then, to use his good offices to engage with NatWest because of the concerns about this landlord, its previous business history and its behaviour towards residents of the Butterfields estate? In particular, its use of the idea that residents will somehow incur thousands of pounds in fines is evidence that those involved are not fit and proper people. If they will not engage with Dolphin, at least their bank might. May I therefore press the Minister to say whether he will engage with NatWest—yes or no?